Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building | Portland, OR Photo: Nic Lehoux Architectural Photography
Getting to
Outcome-Based
Building
Performance
Report from a Seattle Summit on
Performance Outcomes
Prepared by:
Mark Frankel Technical Director Jim Edelson
Director of Codes and Policy New Buildings Institute
Ryan Colker, Director, Consultative Council/Presidential Advisor
National Institute of Building Sciences
Event Sponsors
EVENT REPORT
May 2015
Introduction . . . . 1
Summary of the Summit . . . . 1
Policy Goals for the Building Sector . . . . 3
Role of Energy Codes . . . . 4
Role of Benchmarking and Disclosure . . . . 5
Dividing Responsibility for Building Energy Performance . . . . 6
Design Team . . . . 6
Owners/Developers . . . . 10
Building Operators . . . . 10
Building Occupants . . . . 12
Tools and Strategies . . . . 13
Benchmarking and Disclosure . . . . 14
Codes . . . . 14
Performance Metrics . . . . 14
Performance Period . . . . 15
Case Studies . . . . 15
Metering and Feedback . . . . 16
Energy Modeling . . . . 16
Contracts/Liability . . . . 17
Industry and Market Engagement . . . . 19
Behavioral Change . . . . 20
Measuring Performance . . . . 22
Energy Performance Metrics . . . . 22
Non-Energy Metrics . . . . 23
Performance Metrics for Codes and Policy . . . . 25
Policy Agenda . . . . 26
Scope and Structure of Codes and Policy . . . . 26
Practical Next Steps for Codes . . . . 27
Conclusions . . . . 28
Appendices . . . . 31
Appendix I - Summit Agenda . . . . 31
Appendix II - Attendees . . . . 32
Table of Contents
Introduction
It is widely understood that the building sector plays a major role in the energy economy, and that achieving broadly adopted goals to reduce carbon emissions and energy impact will rely heavily on improvements to the energy performance of the building stock . With this recognition has come increased attention on the energy performance characteristics of individual buildings, and an increasing need for the building design and delivery process to engage more directly in efforts to improve building performance outcomes . At the same time, codes and policies are setting more and more aggressive performance targets for buildings, which are driving an increased awareness that successful building performance relies not only on successful design strategies, but also on the role and behavior of building owners, operators and tenants .To better understand how the building industry can consistently deliver good building performance outcomes, New Buildings Institute (NBI) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) convened a summit of national experts to focus on industry characteristics and needs that will support a move to performance outcomes . This Summit was generously supported by industry sponsorships, and took place in Seattle, Washington, in August, 2014 . This report is a summary of the issues and information developed at that meeting, presented as a starting point in developing a roadmap to outcome-based performance .
Summary of the Summit
The goal of advancing the buildings industry to focus on actual, measured energy performance and life-cycle approaches has been a bit of a fairytale . The Getting to Outcome-Based Performance Summit was intended to be a step on the path to “happily ever after .” This gathering of industry thought leaders was convened to provide vision in the research, policies and other solutions that will advance the industry .1 Immediately, the group identified the need to focus in two key areas—codes and policies, and industry practice . While these areas often involve different audiences, the success of the overall advancement to outcome-based performance will require a coordinated approach . Design and construction must be linked with operations and maintenance to realize performance goals .
Participants identified several goals based on their vision for the industry . These include:
• Service-based models for delivery where comfort and occupant experience are the deliverables .
• Refocus the modeling industry away from models solely as compliance and verification tools (~80% of their current use) to performance and design decision-making tools (~20% of their current use) .
• Move toward requirements where a project’s energy use intensity (EUI) is predictable based on building type, rather than large variations in EUI based on design decisions .
1 Summit attendees are identified in Appendix II.
Design and construction
must be linked with
operations and
maintenance to realize
performance goals .
• Develop a simple, three-page energy code focused on performance outcome .
In addition to these high-level goals, participants identified several existing challenges and the steps necessary to overcome them . Many of these were addressed in greater depth during the breakout sessions; they provided an important starting point for the discussion and are listed below .
• Occupants: Occupants must share clear, direct responsibility for outcomes and be engaged in achieving the desired results .
• Operations: Greater knowledge and skill is required in operations— operations and maintenance staff should no longer be relegated to the basement . They are part of the team and should be compensated in line with their importance to the mission . Unions could be part of this effort .
• Policymakers: Policymakers need to understand what is actually possible and build policies and programs around those possibilities . Such programs and policies should be built on feedback loops .
• Responsibility for Performance: Building design, construction and operations have become increasingly complex . With the convergence of systems and growing complexity in interactions, clear lines of responsibility seldom exist .
• Project Team Goals: From day one, complete project teams should be assembled, and comfort and energy goals identified .
• Valuation: Valuation criteria and corporate decision making need to shift . The value of real estate should be more closely tied to performance . The industry must move away from over-emphasis on minimizing first cost, which is only perpetuated by the concept of payback . Energy performance is an investment that increases net present value and generates other substantial economic and other benefits .
• Integrated Design: Design-bid-build models should be sunset in favor of integrated design paths that yield integrated risk and reward structures .
• Change over time: Current codes require design for a snapshot in time, yet buildings evolve over their lifetime .
• Scale: Outcomes beyond individual buildings are required . This can drive policy development at the community level across multiple sectors to achieve the desired goals .
• Operations phase: Codes regulate design and construction, but what regulates operations? Codes could fill that gap, but should they? • Building energy data: A new framework for data based on real-time
information is needed . The Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) model is obsolete .
The realization of all these goals could be supported by an increased focus on outcomes and the recommendations from this Summit . The Summit was conducted as a series of breakout sessions interspersed with group discussion .2
2 Summit Agenda appears as Appendix I.
Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse Long Beach, CA
This report summarizes the key discussions and findings identified at the Summit and ties these issues together with additional information and narratives focused on advancing the building industry toward tools and practices to advance measured building performance outcomes .
While the economics of energy efficiency and improved performance have long played a modest role in driving building performance improvement, larger policy goals have become the primary driver over the past five years or so . The widely adopted 2030 Challenge is a prime example . In response to growing concern about carbon emissions and the potential for significant
climate change, the Architecture 2030 organization issued the 2030 Challenge in 2006 . Recognizing that building energy use was the largest single source of U .S . carbon emissions (largely through dependence on coal-fired electrical generation) Architecture 2030 proposed a goal to reduce new building energy use by 50 percent in the near term, culminating in the achievement of carbon neutral, zero net annual energy use for new buildings by the year 2030 (and a 50% reduction in existing building energy use over the same period)3 . This bold but simply expressed goal captured the attention of the building industry and policymakers and became widely adopted by organizations including the U .S . Congress, American Institute of Architects (AIA), U .S . Green Building Council (USGBC), ASHRAE, U .S . Conference of Mayors, and a host of individual cities and states .
The significance of the 2030 Challenge in this context is twofold: • To align with the goals of the Challenge, energy codes have
incorporated aggressive stringency increases in recent adoption cycles . This has put significant pressure on the building industry to adopt efficiency strategies .
• By defining a specific performance outcome (net zero energy by 2030) the Challenge has for the first time assigned a measurable energy performance metric to individual buildings .
In subsequent sections, this report will explore specific mechanisms and limitations of how codes and policies are driving a focus on building performance . The report will also discuss the role of individual participants in delivering building performance, what market barriers they face in this
3 From www.Architecture2030.org.
Policy Goals for the
Building Sector
FIGURE 1: For 45 years, energy codes and local programs have driven increases in energy efficiency. Stretch codes are now being used to “prime” the market for upcoming code cycles and putting zero energy building performance within reach. Courtesy: NBI
0
20
40
60
80
100
1975 1989 1999 2004 2007 2010 2015-20 Reach Code Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Actual Zero ZNE45 Years of Codes and Programs
Code Code
Code
Code
Code
The current set of codes
and policies generate
a disconnect between
design requirements with
predicted (modeled, or
asset) energy use on one
side, and actual energy
use (operational) on the
other .
The structure of
governmental agencies
and charging statutes
tends to create this
divide on each side of the
Certificate of Occupancy .
endeavor, and what steps, tools, and strategies are needed to deliver measurable improvements in building performance outcomes .
Role of Energy Codes
Energy codes have been an important driver of building-sector performance improvement for several decades, defining a ‘floor’ below which building performance-related characteristics cannot fall . Incremental efficiency improvements have been adopted in each development cycle, following industry performance trends and pushing up the bottom of the performance curve for new construction . Recent code advances have been more
aggressive, and as more stringent requirements are adopted it is becoming increasingly challenging to identify incremental performance improvements for individual building features to continue this progression . Energy codes are becoming more complex and thus more difficult to enforce . Also, energy codes address only a subset of building physical characteristics and features, and do not include mechanisms to influence building performance in the operational phase (the stage in the building life-cycle where the energy is actually used) . The energy code community is recognizing that the conventional scope and enforcement mechanisms of energy codes do not address what happens in the building once a certificate of occupancy has been issued .
Codes and policies set a framework in which each project is delivered . The current set of codes and policies generate a disconnect between design requirements with predicted (modeled, or asset) energy use on one side, and actual energy use (operational) on the other . The structure of governmental agencies and charging statutes tends to create this divide on each side of the Certificate of Occupancy . There is low awareness even of the existence of this problem among politicians, building owners, real estate developers, and the eventual users of the buildings .
In the Summit, participants identified several barriers and potential solutions based on their perspective of the industry . These include:
Barrier 1: Resistance and pushback to creating accountability that lasts into the operational phase of the project. Code enforcement mechanisms do not address building operation, and contractual relationships for the design team do not typically extend past delivery of the building . Further, information provided by the owner in the design phase about building use patterns may not actually be accurate by the time the building is occupied . The potential resolutions for this include getting all building stakeholders, including owners, operators, and tenants, “on board” early in the process; providing mechanisms to check in periodically on building performance; and developing an optional path based on performance outcomes for compliance with codes . Some contractual pathways already exist but are rarely used, thus opening up the possibility that contractual solutions may be available .
Barrier 2: How are energy performance requirements identified, and what are the responsibilities of various parties if buildings do not perform as expected? Potential solutions might include the development of systems that can continuously adjust energy targets based on operational modes and occupancy patterns (such as that done under the B3 program in Minnesota); set performance ranges rather than single-point EUI targets; and focus enforcement efforts only upon the worst-performing buildings . Another solution is to widely publicize the identification of buildings that do not meet their targets – using bad publicity as an enforcement mechanism .
Barrier 3: Low awareness in the industry and the public at large of building energy performance. One identified solution is widespread identification of the energy performance issue in all phases of energy measures and energy code education . Another possible solution is more widespread use of public disclosure ordinances .
The code development process includes key stakeholders and potential allies for any effort to incorporate performance outcome mechanisms into code and policy strategies . These stakeholders must be engaged in any movement toward performance outcomes in codes . Stakeholder categories and key participants include:
• Building owners (BOMA, Leading Builders of America) • Operators & Managers (IFMA)
• Utilities (NARUC)
• Policy-Jurisdictions (Grassroots/Local Level, National Governor’s Association, National Association of Counties, Urban Land Institute, American Public Power Association, National League of Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures, etc .)
• Building Officials (International Code Council)
• Finance/law (Appraisers/Lenders, Realtors, American Bar Association, Insurers)
Role of Benchmarking and Disclosure
One type of policy that is being widely adopted is the requirement that buildings be benchmarked and energy performance characteristics be disclosed on an annual basis . Referred to as benchmarking and
disclosure ordinances, these policies typically mandate that recent building performance information be made available to potential buyers or tenants of the building . In some jurisdictions, such as New York City, this information must also be available to the general public, either through public reporting of the data or posting of the data at the building . Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Seattle, require that the information be submitted to the city as a basis for evaluating the performance of the building stock as a whole .
Benchmarking and disclosure are beginning to have several impacts on the building market . By requiring building owners to collect and report energy performance information, attention is drawn to building
performance, especially if the building is part of a larger portfolio . Also, by allowing prospective buyers or tenants to compare energy use among prospective properties, the energy use comparison becomes part of the market evaluation when considering alternate properties . Relative energy performance therefore becomes a monetary consideration in these
transactions . In a competitive real estate market, this comparison can have a significant impact . And as developers and building owners recognize that relative energy performance has a market value, they begin to expect that their design teams can specifically address building performance as part of the design contract .
Over time, it is anticipated that the effects of benchmarking and disclosure on the commercial real estate market will increase .
Although the role of top-notch building operators in maintaining good building performance has long been recognized, the broad perception in the industry has been focused on the concept that building energy efficiency is primarily driven by building design characteristics and therefore delivered by the design team . There is no question that design has a major influence on
building energy performance, but as design features become more efficient, the proportion of building energy use associated with building operation increases, and the role of building operators and tenant behavior in building energy use becomes more and more significant . In fact, successful achievement of aggressive policy goals will come to rely more and more on integrating good building operations and engaged tenant behaviors into the delivery and management of buildings .
There are key barriers in the market today which make it difficult to assign responsibility for building performance outcomes across all of the players who impact and control this outcome .
Design Team
Not surprisingly, building design plays a major role in influencing the energy use characteristics of the building . Nearly every design decision, from building layout and glazing patterns to system selection, characteristics, and controls, will impact the efficiency and performance of the building . And with tools like energy modeling, the design team can predict strategies which increase or
Dividing
Responsibility for
Building Energy
Performance
Who’s Responsible for Ongoing
Energy Use?
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Architect team Engineering team Building Owner Facilities Manager Building Occupants 45.7% 45.7% 94.3% 80.0% 68.6%“Everyone and No One”
FIGURE 2: A group of building industry thought leaders were asked to share their view of who is responsible for building energy use over time. Courtesy: NIBS
reduce the relative energy use patterns of the building . Because it is possible to identify building features which can reduce energy use, energy codes have focused on requiring specific building characteristics to do so .
What the design team has less ability to predict or control is whether or not the systems designed into the building will be used as intended, and whether the owner or occupants will utilize the building in the patterns and uses anticipated in the design process . In fact, there are currently very few mechanisms by which the assumptions made by the design team about how the building will be operated and occupied can be tracked or verified by the users of the building over the long term .
The recognition that building occupants and operators need to be able to successfully engage in maintaining and improving building performance has significant implications for the design process that delivers the buildings . To explore this, Summit sessions were focused on how the design and delivery process needs to evolve to enable more effective engagement of building operators and tenants in meaningful decisions about ongoing building performance . Key barriers include:
• Lack of feedback to designers on how previous buildings are actually being used, and on how they are actually performing
• Lack of understanding by operators/occupants of how systems are designed to be used
• Lack of mechanisms to adjust performance expectations based on actual building use patterns
• Lack of mechanisms to communicate about anticipated use patterns between owner/occupant and design team in the design phase
• Lack of mechanisms to assign responsibility for performance to the parties responsible for different aspects of performance
One concept that remains to be more fully explored is that of “design for operation .” This concept encompasses the idea that there are key systems and features in the building that rely on effective engagement by building operators and tenants if intended outcomes are to be achieved . Features like performance feedback and metering, intuitive and understandable controls, and good communication about building systems and operation assumptions by the design team to the operators are elements of this strategy .
NBI © 2014
We Need to Evolve Processes
Design + Construction + Operations & Maintenance:
Design
Team
Construction
Team
Maintenance Team
Operations &
FIGURE 3: Operation teams and tenants need to be engaged early in the design process and AEC team members need to be engaged during early and ongoing operations. Courtesy: NBI
All of the barriers listed above suggest that changes need to be made to the design delivery model, and these will have contractual, liability, and procedural implications on the design process .
There are several models for the design delivery process that may contain elements of the strategies needed to deliver better building operation, and there are some examples of new delivery methods that specifically focus on building performance outcomes . For many years the concept of performance-based design has been considered as a mechanism to deliver better building performance outcomes . The promise of this methodology has been severely limited by a lack of information about how to divide responsibilities for building performance among designers, building owners/ operators, and tenants . For example, if the building design intent is for an office building operating 50 hours a week, and the tenants work 80 hours a week, how can the modified energy performance impacts be allocated among the participants?
Recently the GSA and other agencies have undertaken a more aggressive approach to performance contracting, successfully procuring several projects that include performance requirements . A number of these strategies were profiled in a webinar developed in preparation for the Summit, and can be reviewed separately .4
Architects, engineers and contractors (AEC) will play a significant role in the transition of the building process to one focused on outcomes . However, several barriers currently exist that must be addressed—particularly within current procurement and delivery models, and within the design and construction process .
In general, the following needs were identified to overcome these barriers:
• Need to accelerate industry transformation
• Need to redefine the project delivery process
• Need to redefine the role and value of AEC contributions (particularly in delivery of outcome-based performance)
• Need to engage owners to adopt new methods for capturing a property’s value
Members of the AEC community ultimately need an impetus to update their standards of practice and implement practices that serve to advance the professions . Access to information and the skills to competently rely on that information will be essential . However, much of the needed data, feedback loops and knowledge are lacking .
Project owners have a significant role in providing information and triggering transitions within the AEC community . The role of owners and their influence on the design and construction team is discussed below .
While owner recognition of the value of long-term engagement of the AEC team in the project is lacking, the current business model for design 4 http://newbuildings.org/outcome-based-performance-summit
or construction services does not support life-cycle engagement . Post-occupancy evaluations are not standard practice, thus precluding potential feedback loops to understand (and affect) building performance and occupant behavior . The focus on delivery of a product (a building) rather than the services provided by that building perpetuate such short-term engagements . New business models based on those used within other sectors of the economy may be worthy of consideration . These include the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Service Management Model5 or a Standard Product Management Framework .
Effectively linking decisions made in design with the building’s performance in operations will require advancements in energy modeling—both in the technical capabilities and how and when they are actually used . Improvements needed in the modeling process are presented in the Tools and Strategies section below .
Architects and engineers play important roles in the design process and in shaping communities, but have difficulty leading especially when it will challenge the client’s perceptions . Shifting this perception and supporting advancements is necessary . Organizations like AIA and ASHRAE should support these visions and drive the changes necessary within their
membership . Increased availability of education and materials on business planning (including potential for new models or areas of service), financial literacy, communication with business, and discussions on advancing the industry are required .
To overcome the barriers identified above, the following potential solutions were identified:
• Advance the use of energy modeling through creation of a standardized scope of service that drives towards outcomes and supports utilization throughout design and into occupancy . Modeling requirements and protocols should be aligned across codes and other regulations, utility incentives, rating programs, and other users of modeling results .
• Increase the education of stakeholders in the building process including owners, designers, contractors and members of the public served by the industry . Specific areas of focus include the value of investment in life-cycle approaches, providing AEC stakeholders with financial and business literacy, and understanding behavioral science .
• Update codes and other policies to implement minimum performance requirements and serve as champions of innovation .
• Energy performance data and feedback loops must improve . Data requires standardized methodologies for collection and reporting and must undergo regular updating . The European Union model for energy performance data may prove beneficial . Energy certificates may ultimately tie to financial performance .
5 See http://www.itil-officialsite.com/
Effectively linking
decisions made
in design with the
building’s performance
in operations will require
advancements in energy
modeling—both in the
technical capabilities and
how and when they are
actually used .
Owners/Developers
The role of building owners/developers in the overall achievement of building performance varies widely based on the overall owner characteristics . Owner operators, including government, universities, hospital and corporate campuses, tend to have a long-term focus and can exhibit significant control over many stages within the building life-cycle . This ownership model can be very conducive to implementation of outcome-based requirements as evidenced by GSA and the states of Washington and California .
Developers with a short-term ownership horizon represent the other end of the spectrum and may be the most challenging to implementation of outcome requirements . Often, they procure buildings on speculation without information about future tenants upon which to base performance requirements . The first-cost focus of these owners results in the impacts of initial design decisions being transferred to the subsequent owner . Several Summit participants expressed a strong desire to transition this business model .
Project programming and the owner’s performance requirements (OPR) set the stage for the desired project outcomes, but they are often not robust, resulting in weak follow-through . Additionally, the end users and operations staff are not fully engaged in outlining the project goals or accessible during the design and construction process to help clarify project needs . These deficiencies result in the design and construction team basing decisions on unclear desired outcomes . Owner budgeting practices can influence decision making in design (particularly capital versus operational budgets), but many AEC firms lack the financial literacy to address these influencers . Owners also do not understand the value of having the design and construction team engaged in the project once the building is occupied . An owner’s engagement with tenants will significantly influence the ability to achieve outcomes . Leasing terms can help align building owner goals with actions undertaken by tenants .
Building Operators
Fundamental to the achievement of outcomes is the existence of effective operations—including policies, procedures, personnel and investment . There are key limitations in the current state of building operations and management with respect to the changes necessary to achieve outcome-based requirements .
Currently, the sophistication and effectiveness of building operations varies widely . Good operations programs do exist, but they are typically isolated cases and not the norm . Summit discussions on this topic questioned whether the focus should be on improving the top five percent of the industry or in bringing up the rest of the industry . Case studies specifically focused on small buildings operations can help dispel the myth that truly effective operations can only be accomplished in large buildings with sophisticated staffs and diagnostic tools . As a whole, the operations segment is behind and struggling to keep up with the evolution of the industry . The expansion of technology has existing operations staff under prepared . While up-and-coming, technologically savvy Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building
staff has the willingness to embrace the technology, they lack the experience and knowledge underlying the technology and the functions they perform . Meanwhile, a significant percentage of the current skilled manpower in the operations industry is nearing retirement .
Building the skills and motivation of operations staff will be essential for realizing desired outcomes . Certifications can help, but the demand needs to be built through owner requirements . Credible data and studies on the link between operator training and building performance are needed .6 Respect for building operations as a career is required . Establishing a recognized career track including community college curricula and recognition by the Department of Labor can help .
Providing the right motivational triggers can drive the results desired . One potential motivator is the use of benchmarking and disclosure—as one participant put it, “until you keep score, it’s only practice .” Benchmarking and disclosure can help drive competition within a set of comparable buildings .7 Instilling a competitive nature in operations staff can drive attention to the details and data necessary to achieve results .
The relationship between building operations teams and corporate
management can play a significant role in their ability to effectively produce results . Like most departments, facility managers are under increased pressure to do more with less . This includes reducing staff sizes and exploring potential outsourcing of operations activities . Organizational leaders may not fully understand the resources necessary to effectively manage building operations—if the building is clean and occupants are happy, everything must be functioning properly . This lack of visibility and understanding can lead to the provision of budgets that do not reflect the actual investments required for effective operations . Understanding owner motivations (money) and educating them as to the risks of poor performance can help .
Too much time and attention of building operators is devoted to “putting out fires” and problem solving and not to the strategic, long-term planning and programs necessary . Providing better data and analytics can help move away from the perpetual crisis mode—rather than putting out the fires, let’s reduce the fuel sources . An increased focus on information flows and the engagement of diagnostics software providers to identify the most valuable information for action is required .
Raising the visibility of operations and the importance to the overall organizational mission is essential . However, many departments are either ill equipped to deliver such a message or just do not have the necessary bandwidth . Operations departments often are not consulted by higher ups, and they are often not skilled at communicating their needs or credible if they
6 A potential starting point is a study of the Building Operator Training and Certification program. Research/Into/Action, Evaluation Of The Building Operator Training And Certification (BOC) Program In The Northeast.
http://www.putnamprice.com/pdf/NEEPBOCevaluation.pdf
7 Participants did discuss the current state of disclosure and its impact on the market. Overall, tenants are not asking for disclosure data but are focused on visible marks of performance (LEED, EnergyStar, Green Globes, etc.). Whether public or not, brokers always had access to energy use data but have not been utilizing it.
Raising the visibility
of operations and the
importance to the overall
organizational mission is
essential .
are . Accountability at a building level should be established to get owner buy-in and trigger deeper focus on why performance changes are occurring .
Tenant-occupied buildings may present specific challenges including where savings from operational improvements may flow (to the tenants or to the owner) and how such investments can be optimized to trigger savings . Lease structures have a significant role to play in investment decision making . With the expanding role of commissioning (and its potential function for the verification of the capability to achieve outcomes), defining, filling and smoothing the gap of where the role of commissioning ends and operations begins is needed . Monitor-based commissioning can help enhance the capabilities of operations staff, but effective data analysis is required .
Recognizing that building operation is just one piece of the puzzle, it is important to acknowledge that effective operation requires good engineering . Good building operation alone can only go so far .
Leadership in raising the visibility of operations is necessary . Organizations like BOMA, IFMA and unions should lead . The lack of a member-driven organization for building engineers is an issue .
While not directly related to the topic, Summit discussions did identify the need to engage utilities, specifically on their motivation for incentive programs—aiming for long-term performance .
Building Occupants
The role of occupants in building performance is growing for a number of reasons . As buildings become more efficient, the percent of total building energy use that is associated with occupant loads such as computers, charging equipment, and other office equipment is increasing . Most
projections suggest that plug loads are growing as an absolute load as well .8 Meanwhile, strategies to reduce building energy use are tending to rely on changes to occupant behavior and use patterns more directly . These trends suggest that it is becoming more and more important to engage building occupants in meaningful approaches to managing building energy use . Building design characteristics can play a major role in enabling tenants to improve building efficiency . Some design features can be used to ‘hard code’ occupant savings . Strategies like occupancy/vacancy sensors for lighting, HVAC system zoning that allows for flexibility, daylight dimming, and switched
8 http://newbuildings.org/resources-energy-efficient-plug-loads
Practicing Sustainability
SERA ARCHITECTS, INC. © 2013
ENERGY USE
PREDICTED vs. ACTUAL
FIGURE 4: Many different actors during the design, construction and operational process contribute to a building’s energy use intensity (EUI) with varying expectations.
outlets that respond to occupant activity, but do not rely directly on occupant behavior to effectively save energy . But there are also a range of potential building features that can directly enable energy savings from efficient behavior changes . These can range from circulation and core space designs that encourage use of stairways to metering and information systems that provide direct feedback to occupants on energy use, thereby enabling better decisions on the part of occupants to save building energy . Feedback is critical if occupants are expected to directly engage in building performance, and feedback systems need to be designed and accounted for in the design process .
Many projects have demonstrated strategies to engage building tenants in energy efficiency . Successful projects often include direct or perceived competitions among tenant groups, or between buildings . Direct
competitions set up specific building performance goals and reward tenants for achieving or maintaining building performance goals . In some cases, these competitions can be national in scope, as between college dormitories or campuses in competitions run by Lucid Design or other firms . In other cases, the competition is more indirect, when tenants are given metrics comparing their energy performance to a neighborhood average . Both strategies have been shown to lead to energy savings, though there has been some concern that the effect is temporary . Both strategies also directly rely on building performance feedback that is made available to building occupants to guide behavior .
Other tenant interventions can have a more direct financial incentive . Green leases may include provisions that specifically incentivize building energy performance for the tenants . In some markets, tenants may insist on lease structures that allow them to control some leasing costs through efficiency strategies . But overall in the market there are many barriers to directly incentivizing building occupants to engage in energy performance management . Most leases do not incentivize the tenants to reduce energy use, and often it is the building owner, not the tenant, who benefits from these performance improvements . More commonly, there is no direct feedback to building occupants to allow them to make informed choices about building performance improvement .
Successfully engaging tenants in improved building operation will require a combination of design features that support this engagement, more direct financial incentives for better behavior and the removal of financial barriers, and a growing perception among building occupants of the critical role they can play in managing building energy use .
A key aspect of the Summit was to focus on tools and strategies that would be needed to more broadly move the building industry toward building performance outcomes . A number of needs and opportunities were identified that together will contribute to progress on making building performance outcomes a widely understood goal, and to developing mechanisms which can support better performance outcomes .
Benchmarking and Disclosure
As discussed previously, the adoption of benchmarking and disclosure ordinances, and the wide public dissemination of information about building performance, will significantly increase market awareness of building performance and lead to the incorporation of building performance information into building and leasing valuations .
Codes
The current structure of building codes also hampers a shift to focus on outcomes . The codes are written to influence design, not performance . The perception is that a shift to outcome-based codes may add complexity, time, and schedule uncertainty . The role of LEED in influencing the building industry and owners was cited as a potential distraction from the importance of performance . However, LEED does have the opportunity to help raise performance requirements and build the case for operational outcomes . A more in-depth discussion of codes as a mechanism to advance outcome-based performance is included below .
Performance Metrics
Effectively setting building targets and performance metrics will be essential in advancing application of outcome-based requirements . Depending on the specific form of requirements, different methodologies could be used . Some of the methods and challenges associated with each are identified below:
• Owner/Project team established performance requirements. To date, owner established requirements have been the most prevalent . These requirements and the associated metrics can be based on owner experience due to benchmarking of their current portfolio and an understanding of occupancy and how their buildings are to be operated . The agreement and subsequent monitoring requirements for demonstration of achievement are established by contract between the owner and design team . The contract may include specific fee incentives or contingencies based on performance outcome .
• National model requirements . Setting static building performance targets at a national scale is challenging . At this time, the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) provides the most comprehensive dataset characterizing the performance of the
Practicing Sustainability SERA ARCHITECTS, INC. © 2013
OUTCOME BASED CODES
FOCUSED ON ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
CURRENT
CODES
MEET PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTSOUTCOME BASED
CODES
MEET PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 2030 CHALLENGE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT (EISA)LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE LEED RESTORATIVE BUILDINGS LAW BREAKING BUILDINGS
NET ZERO ENERGY CERTIFICATION
FIGURE 5: Outcome-based energy code compliance offers an alternative option to verify a building’s energy performance after it is occupied and operational. Courtesy: SERA Architects
U .S . building stock . Unfortunately, current CBECS data is from the 2003 survey and only allows for statistically valid targets in certain building types in certain climate zones . A proposal for inclusion in the International Green Construction Code by NIBS, NBI, BOMA and others uses CBECS to set performance targets .9 An alternative, modeling-based methodology to setting targets may also be
developed . Such an approach would produce an individualized target for each building .
• State or local performance requirements. Establishing state or local requirements, whether in code or through other policies, can be much more focused and contextual than nationally established targets . Jurisdictions with benchmarking and disclosure information can more readily parse data to set targets by building type and be more reflective of localized climate and use conditions as compared to CBECS . In addition to setting the initial targets that will influence design, methods for adjusting targets during the performance period should the occupancy or use change will be necessary . See additional discussion in the energy performance metrics section below .
Performance Period
To date, most outcome-based requirements have been focused on demonstration of results within a relatively short time period . Public-private partnerships or design-build-operate-maintain contracts are the exception but have not yet been widely used . At this early stage in the development and implementation of outcome-based approaches, a single demonstration of achievement may be appropriate . But in the long-term, establishment and accomplishment of requirements should cover the entire building life cycle . Linking requirements from design and construction to operations will be an important step in establishing this continuum . Recent examples require one or more years of performance monitoring and feedback .
Many Summit participants saw outcome-based requirements as a means to tackling energy use within existing buildings . Performance criteria in policies that impact the entire building life-cycle should be developed . Audit and retrofit policies in place in New York City may be a good starting point .
Case Studies
The introduction and implementation of new technologies or practices
follows a common pattern of early adopters through to widespread utilization . Moving an industry along this curve requires demonstration that the early adopters have been successful in implementation and achieved a verified level of benefit from taking such a step . Case studies provide a potential methodology and a valuable demonstration of success to encourage others to implement outcome-based requirements . The case studies must be sufficiently diverse by project type to allow design teams and owners to see their peers utilizing the identified practices .
9 Since the Summit, this provision was approved and will be an alternative compliance path in the 2015 IgCC.
At this early stage in
the development and
implementation of
outcome-based
approaches, a single
demonstration of
achievement may be
appropriate . But in the
long-term, establishment
and accomplishment
of requirements should
cover the entire building
life cycle .
Existing projects that have effectively implemented outcome-based requirements are encouraged to develop case studies focused specifically on this element of the project . This includes sharing of lessons learned and agreements and contracts utilized .
Metering and Feedback
To succeed in building performance outcomes, strategies to directly engage operators and tenants in meaningful interaction with building performance features are needed . As discussed, there are a range of communication and information tools to improve the transition from design to operation . There are also basic metering and feedback systems that should be designed into buildings to provide the actionable information needed by operators and tenants to better manage building performance . Increasingly, there are good examples of these strategies in the market . Information about effective metering and feedback systems must to be collected and disseminated .
Energy Modeling
Currently, energy modeling is not part of standard design practice, and if it is used it tends to be in isolation and not as a tool integrated into the overall process . When modeling is used, it is typically to “check a box” within a regulatory requirement or rating system . This severely limits the scope of the modeling conducted and results in the model not being used to its full potential within the design process (nor integrated into operations) . Based on the current uses of energy modeling, owners and the building team are not seeing the full value— thus diminishing the desire to invest in models that could support better design and operations and ultimately outcome-based performance .
The use of energy modeling needs to evolve to more directly reflect building performance outcome . Modeling tools need to more effectively incorporate information about anticipated building operation, which will require better communication and information transfer from building owners to the design team and energy modelers . Currently, energy modeling predictions are used almost exclusively to compare different design alternatives under a fixed set of building operating assumptions . This leads to misconceptions about predicted outcomes that do not reflect real and reasonable variations in building characteristics . Performance predictions generated by energy modeling need to be understood as a predicted range of outcome based on the anticipated range of building use patterns, occupant behavior, weather variation, control characteristics, and other factors .
Better feedback mechanisms are needed by design teams to understand how their past buildings are being used . This information would allow designers to calibrate the wide range of modeling inputs that are not dependent on specific FIGURE 6: The Ratio of Actual (measured)
EUI to Design (modeled) EUI shows that actual building performance outcomes can vary significantly from design predictions (Design EUI axis). Projects below 1.0 on the y-axis are using less energy than predicted, while projects above 1.0 on this axis are using more energy than predicted. The difference is more pronounced in buildings predicted to be low energy users, in part because highly variable occupant and operator impacts represent a much larger percentage of total energy use in these buildings. Courtesy: NBI
design decisions, to lead to more accurate performance predictions . Modeling guidance such as the COMNET modeling guidelines and procedures can help facilitate more consistency in building operational assumptions .10
Energy models generated in the design process should be carried forward into the building operational phase and updated based on actual building use and performance characteristics . In this way, the energy modeling process can be improved, and the model can serve as additional information about whether the building is operating as anticipated . Better use of
energy modeling tools will be a critical element in sorting out performance responsibilities among design, construction, and operation team members .
Contracts/Liability
The achievement of performance outcomes relies on effective design, construction and operations of buildings . However, in most “traditional” contract and building processes these stages are dealt with independently and thus the potential efficiencies and synergies are lost . Further, as
discussed in the operations breakout group, the owner and O&M staff are left dealing with whatever decisions were made in the design and construction process—with limited ongoing support from the AEC team and little input into
design and construction decisions . In fact, the project documentation may not even communicate to the operations staff what was intended by the design team .
Setting the stage for widespread focus on outcomes requires examination of key factors that drive contracts and project processes . The biggest factor is the ability to identify risk and then manage that risk . Trust across parties is a key factor in the success of outcome-focused projects . Establishing an environment conducive to shared risks and shared rewards is important . Contractors can obtain bonding, but the absence of this capability for designers results in a potential disconnect . The overall project delivery process and the allocation of total project funding (both in time and by actor) will need to change . Owners will need to recognize that they are investing in a project delivery process and not the individual components within that process . A long-term contract between architects, engineers, contractors, owners, and operators with engagement or recognition of other important participants (specialty designers and contractors, finance, insurance, etc .) may be required . The potential nature and duration is an area where additional discussion is needed .
10 http://www.comnet.org/
The Most Sensible and Fair Means of
Contractually Apportioning Risk?
Nobody liked the litigation option. . .
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Leave it up to litigation to
work out standards over time.
Devise three-party agreements between design team, contractor
and owner to cooperatively share the risk & rewards for actual
performance Release the design team
and contractor from responsibility as soon as
a commissioning authority or other expert
determines building & systems are capable of
being operated below the energy cap. Then responsibility would be entirely on occupants &
owner
FIGURE 7: A group of building industry thought leaders were asked to share their view of how to contractually apportion risk of non-performance. Courtesy: NIBS
Trust across parties is a
key factor in the success
of outcome-focused
projects .
Today, there is a fundamental disconnect between actors with the necessary information and those responsible for procurement and design . This results in a compounding of safety factors resulting in wide variations in the basis of design and a reluctance to provide reliable performance predictions . Contracts should support the establishment of feedback loops to all industry participants .
Incorporating as much detail into existing contracts regarding roles and responsibilities is an important step in the evolutionary process . This includes the Basis of Design along with methods for monitoring its realization . Such monitoring, coupled with effective commissioning, can help in apportioning risk appropriately . A roles and responsibilities matrix should be developed and incorporated into contracts . The Public Sector Comparator implemented in British Columbia, Canada, can be a model . Establishing a soft landing concept where the building is operated for the first year with a specific focus on how that operation meets the design intent is important and must involve the design team .
Often, smaller participants in the design process (sub-discipline designers and specialty subcontractors) bear risk through meeting their contract obligations but are not party to the rewards overall . Agreements that
recognize all actors in the design and construction process and appropriately identify risk and rewards are required—risk should be shared rather than shifted .
Several models already exist, but case studies, models, and education are necessary to support their widespread utilization . Models are identified below .
Initial shifts to the use of outcome-focused contracts will likely be among owner-occupied buildings (they have the greatest control over occupants, typically have long time horizons and understand the risks of climate change and stranded investments) . Some owner-occupiers are already implementing such contracts (e .g ., GSA Federal Center South, Washington State Olympia Office Building, University of Washington R&D buildings) . Incentives may be necessary in the short term to shift the perspective of non-owner-occupiers . Ideally, a system focused on total cost of ownership (TCO) guarantees would be possible once the issues identified during the Summit are resolved . Table 1: Contract Models
Energy Saving Agreement A Two (owner + provider) or Three (owner + provider + finance) party agreement based on meter readings with a five to 15 year timeframe
Energy Saving Purchase Agreement An agreement focused on the aggregation of conservation measures
Public Private Partnership (PPP/P3)/ Design Build Operate Maintain/Design Build Operate Finance
A life-cycle focused contract where design, construction and operations responsibility lie in a single entity thus supporting optimization across all three stages .
Performance Requirements in Contracts Contracts where certain performance requirements are established and a portion of the design fee is withheld until achievement of that requirement is demonstrated
Industry and Market Engagement
Moving toward a perception of building performance based on actual energy performance outcome will require a transition in the marketplace to recognize the value of actual energy performance as a basis for comparing buildings . This transition will require the development of key market messaging; a recognition of the motivations of key market players; and the engagement of key interest groups .
Messaging to the market which will support a focus on building performance outcomes includes:
• Public recognition (Great Building!)
• The ability to compare building performance data to that of peer buildings
• A recognition that building performance is not static and can evolve into better (or worse) performance without on-going intervention and management
• Recognition that building energy use is tied to environmental impacts beyond the building itself
• An alignment of building performance improvements with corporate identify and commitment
• The role of building performance in pride of ownership and occupancy • Good information about the business case for building performance,
both in terms of energy costs and other performance advantages, including occupant/tenant satisfaction .
• A recognition that asset value is tied to building performance characteristics
There are a wide number of key interest groups that could participate in a transition to widespread recognition of building performance outcome . These groups are identified in Table 2 . Other publicity opportunities, such as op-ed pieces, could also be used to increase perception of this issue .
Moving toward a
perception of building
performance based
on actual energy
performance outcome will
require a transition in the
marketplace to recognize
the value of actual energy
performance as a basis
for comparing buildings .
Behavioral Change
As identified above, the achievement of performance outcomes will depend on the behavior of multiple actors . Understanding and influencing this behavior to result in decisions supportive of desired outcomes will be an important step in achieving widespread adoption of outcome-based requirements—outcomes will not be effective without understanding and influencing occupant behavior .
Achievement of performance outcomes requires the engagement of
operators; tenants, employers and users; and owners . While these represent the top priorities, designers also must be engaged to support understanding in future projects . Once these participants are engaged, the market and elected officials will likely follow .
Data on tenant behavior is limited—particularly with respect to energy efficiency . Identifying the messages that resonate with this audience, understanding their motivations, and examples of what has worked are needed . Development of a “reference standard” for tenant engagement is required . Addressing the balance between one-time interventions and continuous interactions is necessary .
Stakeholder Groups Stakeholder Organizations
• Tenants
• Business Improvement Districts • Financers
• Government Agencies • Insurance
• Corporate Real Estate Decision Makers • Developers • Corporate Boards • Owners • Journalists • NGO’s/Advocates • Facility Management • Product Managers/Developers • Real Estate/Leasing
• Strategic Business Consultants • Risk Officers
• Manufacturers • CFOs
• Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) • Property Managers
• General Public
• National Institute of Building Sciences Council on Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (CFIRE)
• American Institute of Architects (AIA) • National Association of Realtors • Associated of General Contractors of
America (AGC)
• National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB)
• Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) • Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA)
• World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
• National Association of Regional Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
• National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP)
• CoreNet Global
• National Association of State Energy Offices (NASEO)
• Urban Land Institute(ULI)/Green Print • Green Building Finance Consortium (GBFC • ASHRAE
• U .S . Green Building Council • International Facility Management
Association (IFMA)
• American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE)
• International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)
• APPA
• American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
• American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
• National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
• International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
• Green Building Initiative (GBI) • National Association of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO) • U .S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • U .S . General Services Administration (GSA) • National Trust for Historic Preservation
(NTHP)
• Global Buildings Performance Network (GBPN)
• Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) • National Association of Power Engineers
(NAPE)
• Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) • Urban Sustainability Directors Network
(USDN)
Behavior change can be expressed using the following equations
Motivations for change to support outcomes can be based on many of the following:
• Potential for fines
• Cost of energy
• Social cost of carbon
• Optimizing funding for organizational mission
• Maintaining leadership in an industry
• Avoiding perception of being below average
Identifying potential sources of incentives is important and can eventually be aligned to offset the levels of risk undertaken by participants in based performance processes . Focus on the ultimate beneficiary of outcome-based performance (owners) can help support incentivizing key audiences (employees, designers, operators) . These incentives must be easy to implement and minimally invasive thus allowing their widespread utilizations . Different mechanisms for sharing motivations and advancing change can be implemented including competitions and peer pressure that incorporate dashboards (at the appropriate level of complexity for the audience), newsletters, events and friendly peer pressure . Green teams or champions with equal participation by operators, tenants and employees can help drive change .
Education to support change is necessary . Specific topics include comfort (putting on a sweater versus utilizing a space heater) and the increasing impact of tenant-controlled loads on energy use . Cooperative Extension may be a model for driving change based on its ability to identify an area needing change, providing the tools necessary and then motivating stakeholders to make the change .
Green leases are an opportunity to align owner, tenant, and performance goals and encourage greater tenant involvement in the building’s performance results . Implementing green leases may be difficult in the near term as some owners may foresee it limiting the pool of potential tenants .
Regulation + Technology + Incentives + Education + Pricing
=
Change
A Larger
Objective or
Something
Wrong
The Ability to
Change the
Wrong or meet
the Objective
A Benefit or the
Threat of Loss
Behavior
Change
Efforts underway in other sectors including health can help shed light on effective methods . Data alone usually does not motivate, but storytelling can . Effective messages coupled with delivery mechanisms will be important . Messages should be simple and understood by multiple audiences .
This engagement and behavior change must occur while other transitions in the work environment are underway . New ways of working are impacting the size and layout of workspaces . New metrics for energy use—EUI per person or per widget—may be warranted .
Ultimately, social scientists should be engaged in discussions and research to support this transition in the buildings industry .
Energy Performance Metrics
The most commonly used energy metric at the building level is energy use intensity (EUI) . EUI is measured in kBtu/sf/yr, or less commonly in kWh/sf/yr . This metric represents a combination of all fuel types used by a building in a year, normalized to building size (in square feet of floor area) .
Though easily understood, there are a number of limitations to EUI that lead to questions about whether this is the most appropriate metric for building performance . EUI is affected by building use type, climate, hours of use, and other factors that are normal variables in buildings . For example, a building located in more extreme climates will naturally have a higher EUI than a comparable building in a milder climate (all other things being equal) . These differences do not reflect any inherent building performance issues, so in this case the comparison of EUI does not necessarily lead to conclusions about building performance between different buildings .
Note however that EUI is a measured performance number that can be used to track individual building performance over time . EUI can also be compared to other buildings if the anticipated performance variables are normalized to reflect different building characteristics . Normalization accounts for anticipated use patterns to develop expectations of building performance based on these characteristics . In this way an EUI can be used as a target or benchmark for performance . Typical issues that should be normalized to account for different energy performance expectations include:
• Climate zone • Facility use(s)
• Actual weather history • Hours of operation • Occupancy levels
• Special features (secondary uses, data centers, processing)
The key to successfully using EUI as a benchmark is having good data on the energy performance of similar buildings . Jurisdictions that collect and evaluate disclosure data are in a strong position to set EUI targets and compare local building stock performance to these benchmarks .
Measuring
Performance
Jurisdictions that collect
and evaluate disclosure
data are in a strong
position to set EUI
targets and compare
local building stock
performance to these
benchmarks .
CBECS and Energy Star both use EUI data to report building performance . Energy Star normalizes for climate, use type, and occupant density to generate performance expectations . The simplicity of EUI leads to its widespread use in the market . An alternative metric to EUI is the Zero Energy Performance Index, or zEPI . This metric sets a baseline of CBECS 2001 data, the same baseline used by the 2030 Challenge as a basis for building performance policy goals . The baseline is normalized to a value of 100, while zero net annual energy performance is set at a value of 0 . The zEPI score places building performance on this 100 to 0 scale, to represent progress toward zero net energy (ZNE) . The lower the score, the better the building is performing . This metric is built into the IgCC, and has been adopted elsewhere as well .
Energy Star uses a somewhat different metric . EUI is normalized based on occupancy, climate, and use type, then this value is plotted against the overall building stock as a percentile . A score of 100, the highest achievable, represents a building performing in the top 1 percentile of the building stock as represented by CBECS 2001 .
Note that the energy metric used by LEED and others, representing predicted performance percentage beyond code baseline, does not represent an actual performance outcome and is therefore not relevant to this discussion .
Some alternative energy metrics have been proposed, but they have not gained wide traction . These include energy use/occupant, energy use per occupied hour, and other metrics that account for building use patterns . These metrics may represent valid considerations of building performance, but occupancy and use variables are extremely difficult to track in real time, limiting the applicability of these metrics .
Non-Energy Metrics
Although there is a focus on energy performance in discussing building performance outcomes, there are also a number of non-energy metrics that can be used to describe or consider building performance . These metrics include ‘human variables’ such as comfort, health and satisfaction; larger economic metrics such as economic efficiency, productivity, and resource optimization; and building functionality and resiliency in the face of evolving market, environmental, and functional conditions .
Commercial policy adopted
Public buildings benchmarked Single-family transparency adopted Commercial & multifamily policy adopted WA Seattle San Francisco Santa Fe Austin Denver Minneapolis Chicago Arlington, VA Washington, DC Montgomery Co, MD Philadelphia New York City Boston Cambridge CA SD KS AK HI MN MI OH NY CT ME AL Portland Atlanta Berkeley, CA
© Copyright 2014 Institute for Market Transformation. Updated 4/2015
FIGURE 8: Cities and states are putting in place disclosure ordinances that require com-mercial buildings to report energy use. This data will help determine whether buildings are performing as designed. Courtesy: IMT
Impacts of building
characteristics on human
performance have been
well documented but
difficult to quantify .
Buildings can impact
occupant health through
poor ventilation and the
presence of toxins, while
comfort and perceived
space quality can impact
absenteeism and even
daily work effectiveness .
Impacts of building characteristics on human performance have been well documented but difficult to quantify . Buildings can impact occupant health through poor ventilation and the presence of toxins, while comfort and perceived space quality can impact absenteeism and even daily work effectiveness . Taken together, the range of building impacts on human occupants are generally categorized as impacts on occupant productivity . Although these characteristics are difficult to measure, there is a clear perception of increased occupant productivity in healthy, pleasant, and well-designed and well-operated buildings, and a converse recognition of poor productivity in unpleasant building spaces . Factors that can affect occupant productivity include:
• Lighting levels and light quality • Access to daylight and views
• Presence of unhealthy compounds in building materials • Poor ventilation
• Lack of control of indoor temperatures, especially when HVAC systems are poorly controlled
• Social environment fostered or limited by building design and shared spaces
While the metrics to evaluate these characteristics are qualitative and somewhat subjective, the importance of these factors becomes apparent when we
recognize that the cost to an organization of employee salaries and benefits is several orders of magnitude larger than the physical operating cost of the building in which employees are housed . Small gains on occupant productivity can have large impacts on an organization’s bottom line, so interest in non-energy metrics for building performance remains high . Building energy performance is also part of a larger economic picture beyond the building itself . Energy productivity is a key economic metric in evaluating the overall economy, and the environmental and political impacts of energy use and electricity generation are far reaching . One manifestation of the larger impacts of building energy use is the frequent discussion of site vs . source energy for buildings . Site energy considers the metered energy use of the building and relates directly to the utility bills paid by the building owner . The source energy metric recognizes that the electricity distribution grid itself includes inefficiencies beyond measured building energy use and that different fuel sources have widely different impacts on carbon generation and therefore climate change . This is a clear manifestation of how broader policy and societal goals and concerns can tie directly to the evaluation of building performance .
More recently, the metric of resiliency has been applied to the building stock,
