Green
Buildings
Guidelines for
Harvard
Presentation to the Administrative Deans.
October 26th 2007
Test Average Savings of Green Buildings
ENERGY
SAVINGS
30%
CARBON
SAVINGS
35%
WATER
USE
SAVINGS
30-50%
WASTE
COST
SAVINGS
50-90%
Source: Capital E Source: www.usgbc.orgTest VERIFIED PERFORMANCE REDUCED LIABILITY & IMPROVED RISK MANAGEMENT REDUCED ABSENTEEISM ENHANCED RECRUITMENT IMPROVED EMPLOYEE MORALE PRODUCTIVITY
30 Year Cost of a Building
Viewed over a 30 year period: Capital cost = 2%
Operations & maintenance costs = 6%
Personnel costs = 92%
What is a Green Building?
Green buildings provide healthier work environments through:
• Increased natural daylight
• Ventilation and temperature control
•Reduced indoor air pollution
Test
Levels of LEED Ratings
Green Buildings
worldwide are certified
with a voluntary,
consensus-based
rating system.
USGBC has four
levels of LEED.
Source: www.usgbc.org
What is the USGBC and LEED?
52-69 points 39-51 points 33-38 points 26-32 points
Test What is the LEED System? LEADERSHIP in ENERGY and ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN A leading-edge system for certifying DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, & OPERATIONS of the greenest buildings in the world
Scores are tallied for different aspects of efficiency and design in appropriate
categories.
For instance, LEED assesses in detail: 1. Site Planning 2. Water Management 3. Energy Management 4. Material Use 5. Indoor Environmental Air Quality 6. Innovation & Design Process Source: www.usgbc.org
What is History of Green Building at Harvard?
What is the
history of green
building design at
Harvard?
2001 2006 2007 2001: HGCI initiates first 3 pilot LEED projects 2004
What is History of Green Building at Harvard?
21 LEED Projects 5 Certified 16 Registered 2005 26 LEED Projects 7 Certified 19 Registered 16 LEED Projects 4 Certified 12 Registered 7 LEED Projects 2 Certified 5 Registered
Landmark Center, HSPH
42,000 Build-Out, Underfloor Air Distribution, Digitally controlled Lighting w/T-5 Lamps
LEED Certified
Harvard School of Public Health
Dunster / Mather Kitchen and Serveries
First Institution Kitchen to Achieve LEED, Dual-Flush Toilets, Melink Variable Speed Drive Stove Hoods, Composting System
LEED Silver Certified
Aldrich Hall
Campus Lighting Master Plan, Preferred Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles, Green Cleaning Program, high performance ventilation 13 Filters, 80% C&D Waste Diversion
LEED Silver Pending
90 Mt. Auburn St.
Ground Source Heat Pumps, No Irrigation, Indoor Air Quality Testing Prior to Occupancy, Untreated Concrete Floors and Walls, Green Cleaning for All of HRES U&C,
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
LEED Gold Certified
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
Hamilton Hall, Harvard Business School
Occupancy Sensor Controlled Thermostats, $370,000 of Plyboo Furnishings, Tested Low-Flow Shower Heads Before Selecting Symmons 2.0, HGCI Performed Daylight and Views Calcs.
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
LEED Gold Pending
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
Weld Hill Research Center Seeking LEED Gold
Closed loop geothermal system for heating and cooling, ventilation rates for lab space designed to 6 air changes per hour with night time set-back
First Science Center Seeking LEED Gold
Allston Development Group
Highest energy performance goal of any lab design at Harvard, careful attention to materials selections, onsite stormwater re-use
46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified
University Operations Services
Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum, Highest energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient elevator
Trial Design Process Building Project Evaluation Recommend Trial Design Process Building Project Evaluation Recommendations Trial Design Process Building Project Evaluation Recommend Trial Design Process Building Project Evaluation Recommendations Harvard now has 26 LEED registered or certified buildings
2002 2003 2004 2005
Continuous Improvement 2002-2007:
Reduced Costs, Streamlined Certification, Staff Expertise, Information Resources, LEED accredited staff
The Allston Development Group has committed to LEED Gold for all buildings in Allston HBS has committed to LEED Gold for all building renovations and construction
What are the
proposed Green
Building
Guidelines for
Harvard?
Development Process
Complete
• 2004: President Summers: Approves Sustainability Principles including a commitment to integrate sustainability into capital approvals process.
• 2004-7: LEED project experience expanded across the University
• Feb 2007: UCMC: Established interfaculty committee to draft guidelines • March – Oct: Guidelines developed by committee over 11 meetings
• Financial Deans: Consensus of approval
• CPRC: Approval with request to research LEED Gold for New Construction • UCMC: Approval with request to research LEED Gold for New Construction
Ongoing
• Administrative Deans: Provide comment • UCMC: Approval final draft
• President Faust: To Review for approval in November
• UCMC Interfaculty Committee: To continue research into LEED Gold option for New Construction and provide recommendations in early 2008
FY07 Capital Project Costs
Number of Projects > $5 million = 8 = $142,440,908 (46% of $)
Number of Projects < $5 million = 55 = $121,777,222 (40% of $)
Under $1 million = 125 = $43,712,714 (14% of $)
The high volume projects < $5 million projects provides an
equally significant opportunity to reduce University operating
DRAFT
Green Building Guidelines
Projects Over $5 million
The University will adopt a policy that capital projects, including new construction, major and partial renovation exceeding $5 million, will be subject to green building guidelines:
• Capital projects exceeding $5 million will seek minimum LEED Silver certification.
The University encourages higher levels of certification. The applicability of the LEED requirement will be determined in preliminary consultation with the CPRC.
• Harvard University requires a number of LEED credits to be treated as pre-requisites for its projects. These credits will address energy, metering and indoor
environmental quality requirements.
• An “Integrated Design” approach is to be adopted. Green design charrettes, involving
all design team members (including operations staff), will be conducted at early stages in the project.
• Life Cycle Costing assessment is to be conducted throughout the project to ensure
that operations and maintenance cost projections are established and effective comparative analyses are conducted for targeted building elements.
• Energy modeling is required, meeting Harvard’s basic energy modeling guidelines.
• All new construction and major renovation projects are to adopt an ongoing
DRAFT
Green Building Guidelines
Projects Under $5 million
• Capital projects under $5 million (over $100K) will be encouraged to meet recommended
performance requirements specific to the following types of building upgrade:
– Lighting – HVAC – Building Envelope – Plug Load – Plumbing Fixtures – Interior Architecture – Furniture and Seating
– Landscaping and Stormwater – Fume Hoods
• All performance requirements are based on LEED for Commercial Interiors and LEED for
New Construction. Certification is NOT required.
• Performance requirements relating to the building envelop are based on the Advanced
Buildings Benchmark
• All projects that have an ongoing utility cost implication must use life cycle costing to
What will be the
cost impact of the
proposed green
A report to California’s Sustainable Building Task
Force, a group of over 40 state agencies, with
funding from seven.
Drawing on cost data from 33 green building
projects and benefits data from over 100 buildings
nationwide. Developed in partnership with USGBC.
STUDY 1
:
The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings
STUDY 1
:
The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings
By: Greg Kats, Capital E
Average Green Premium vs. Level of Green Certification (for Offices and Schools)
0.66% 2.11% 1.82% 6.50% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% Level 1-Certified (8 bldgs) Level 2-Silver (18 bldgs) Level 3-Gold (6 bldgs) Level 4-Platinum (1 bldgs)
Level of Green Certification
A v e ra g e G re e n P re m ium (i n p e rc e n t)
Average Green
Cost Premium
vs. Level of
Green
Certification –
33 buildings
US-wide
STUDY 1
:
The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings
By: Greg Kats, Capital E
Reduced Energy Use in US Green Buildings
Certified Silver Gold Average Energy Efficiency 8% 30% 37% 28%
On-Site Renewable Energy 0% 0% 4% 2%
Green Power 10% 0% 7% 6%
• This study compared construction costs of 83 LEED buildings
to 138 similar non-LEED buildings (221 sample total).
• The building types analyzed included academic buildings,
laboratories, libraries , community centers and ambulatory
care facilities.
• All costs were normalized for time and location in order to
ensure consistency for the comparisons. Cost per square foot
was compared between all projects
STUDY 2
:
Cost of Green Revisited
• The 2006 study shows essentially the same results as 2004:
there is no significant difference in average costs for
green buildings as compared to non-green buildings.
• Many project teams are building green buildings with little or
no added cost, and with budgets well within the cost range of
non-green buildings with similar programs.
• We have also found that, in many areas of the country, the
contracting community has embraced sustainable design, and
no longer sees sustainable design requirements as additional
burdens to be priced in their bids.
STUDY 2
:
Cost of Green Revisited
STUDY 3
:
LEED Credits at Harvard
by HGCI 40 11 3 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Point is no cost and often given in Harvard
projects
Potential cost impact, but will result in reduced
operations costs
Point has cost implication and an associated human health / comfort / productivity benefit
Point has additional cost impact with strictly an
environment benefit
Over 20 LEED Projects at Harvard have shown that there are 40 credits that can be achieved at no added cost if the process is managed effectively.
STUDY 4
:
Green Cost Data for Two Harvard Historic
Additional Soft Costs
Enhanced Commissioning $4,832
Energy Modeling $13,200
Green Building Consultant $15,460
C&D Waste Consultant $34,032
LEED Certification Costs $2,200
MEP design review, recommissioning manual & verification of operator
training
Promotes integrated design and
identifies energy savings from ECMs Guides team through sustainable
design process & manages LEED effort Salvage significant quantities of
materials for donation & targeting > 95% waste diversion rates
Hold team member accountable & 3rd
party verification of sustainability PROJECT 1
Additional Soft Costs
Total Project Cost = $18,509,114
Total Soft Costs = $2,358,275
Total Green Soft Costs = $69,724
_______________________________________________________________________
Green Soft Costs as % of Total = 0.38%
Green Soft Costs as % of Total Soft = 2.96%
Energy Conservation Measures that
Resulted from Soft Cost Investment
Improved Building Envelope $20,971
Variable Frequency Drives $29,000
Lighting Optimization $25,000
Lighting Controls $5,625
CO2 Sensors in Cafeteria $4,000
Hot water temperature difference $2,450
Melink System $12,500
Pressure Independent Control Valves $5,576
Energy Recovery Wheel $10,000
Fan Coil Unit Fan Cycling $0
---Total capital cost of ECMs $115,122
= %0.062 of total project cost PROJECT 1
Total ECM Cost = $115,122
Total First Year Energy Savings = $22,336
Internal Rate of Return = 25.98%
ECMs pay for themselves in < 6 years
Energy Conservation Measures
Total Green Cost Premium = 1% of the total project cost
• $320K Estimated Material Cost of LEED ~ 2.5% of total project cost
• Estimated Energy Savings ($35,000) Annually
• Estimated < 10 year payback
Hamilton Hall
cost estimates
A LEED Silver or Gold certification requirement, if
introduced early and managed effectively, will result in
a minimal additional cost to the project.
This addition will typically be less than 2% total project
cost.
It is also possible that there may be no additional cost.
Significant operating savings can be expected as a
result.
A LEED Silver or Gold certification requirement, if
introduced early and managed effectively, will result in
a minimal additional cost to the project.
This addition will typically be less than 2% total project
cost.
It is also possible that there may be no additional cost.
Significant operating savings can be expected as a
result.
What can be said
about the cost
impact of not
implementing
Harvard’s new
green building
guidelines?
FY06 actual cost = $86,850,000
FY16 projected cost =
$157,052,000
Projection is based on:
• Linear trendline from actual usage from FY1990 – 2006 showing usage increasing by 103,462 MMBTU per year if stays on same trend.
• Projected cost increases of about 3.5% per year (actual projected cost increases for FY08-12 are higher)
Source: UOS Utility Reports and Longwood Operations Departments
Total Building Energy Use from FY90-06 and projected through FY16
y = 103462x + 1E+06 R2 = 0.9381 -500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Fiscal Year M M B TU
Comments?