January 22, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Commissioning, Green Building
Tags: Commissioning, Environmental Building Strategies, Green Building
Environmental Building Strategies is pleased to announce the addition of two members to our team.
Justin Moresco is a licensed professional engineer with 4+ years experience in the green building and construction industries. His engineering experience has focused on existing buildings, from working on LEED certifications to the seismic evaluation of dozens of structures. Before focusing his career on green building more than two years ago, he worked for one of the country’s leading structural engineering firms. Justin is a widely published author on the topics of green building and corporate sustainability, and his articles have appeared in Sustainable Industries Magazine, Reuters.com, NYTimes.com, and BusinessWeek.com. He is currently a board member of the Northern California Chapter of the nonprofit Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Justin is working as a consultant to EBS on a project-by-project basis. His efforts with EBS will focus on Energy Star certifications and LEED EBOM projects, as well as other engineering services.
Justin graduated from University of California at San Diego with a bachelor’s degree in structural engineering and received his master’s in civil engineering from University of California at Berkeley. He also completed a post-graduate diploma in journalism from the London School of Journalism. Justin first became interested in green building and sustainability while he was living in Ghana, West Africa.
Igor Barer is a Mechanical Engineer with a professional background in estimating and managing design-build projects for new construction and energy retrofits for existing buildings. He brings 11+ years experience in the construction industry to the EBS team. His diverse expertise includes biomedical and research facilities, medical facilities, educational facilities, data centers, museums, and commercial buildings. As a LEED Accredited Professional, Igor’s consulting knowledge includes Indoor Air Quality Management/Testing as well as both Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning. Igor is a member of ASHRAE (Americans Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) and the Building Commissioning Association.
Igor is heading up the commissioning division at EBS and is also working with Justin to expand the engineering services we provide. He hopes to expand his role to included MEP coordination and construction management in the near future.
Igor is a graduate of Moscow State University of Food Industry with a degree in mechanical engineering.
With these two additions to the team we have established ourselves as a one-stop-shop for anything related to green building.
— The EBS Team —
January 8, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: energy, Green Building, West Coast Green
I recently attended the West Coast Green conference in San Francisco and came out enthused and confused.
I was enthused about the progress the green buildingindustry is making. That over 14,000 people from all over the country came to learn about the new innovations in green building is huge for an industry, which in many ways, is in its infancy.
I listened to speakers from all sides of the business, real estate experts, government officials, green building consultants, and contractors to list only a few. They all provided interesting insights on where the industry was and should be going and a bit about it how it was going to get there.
There were also more numbers thrown around than a mathematician could handle. The amount of the money that was being directed to the industry from the stimulus bill, CO2 reduction goals, energy efficiency performance goals, and more and more goals.
One thing I didn’t hear enough of was specific ways to connect money to goals. People were so excited to learn that the government was finally sending money their way they forgot to ask how it would actually be implemented and with what oversight.
After the opening remarks I decided to spend the next three days focusing on one thing, how to get actual changes implemented. I decided to break down this task into two areas. First, I would focus on how conferences like this could teach and encourage people to start changing the built environment to stop negatively effecting the natural environment. Secondly, I wanted to know how to get money to these newly educated people to carry out the ideas they learned.
Interview with an Environmental Consultant
To figure out how conferences like West Coast Green affect change I decided to talk to a presenter who led a session at the conference. Matt Macko is a principal at the San Francisco based green building consulting firm Environmental Building Strategies. He led a session titled Deep Retrofits of Commercial Buildings along with Jose Guevara, Property Manager at Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc.
CleanTechies: What was your talk focused on?
Matt: I discussed the potential to flip the current green building conversation from its current state, littered with defensive reactionary discussions mostly focused only on conservation, to one where we work on the offensive to create demand in the marketplace around sustainable decision making. I targeted some economic and financial evaluations that a handful of firms are providing their clients as highlights of the quality work being done in the sustainability industry.
CleanTechies: What were the three most important things you think people got out of your talk?
Matt: People walked away with an understanding that demand must be created to tip the marketplace in order to meet our GHG goals. They also left with a better understanding of the financial value that can be derived through intelligent sustainable decision making. Lastly, they should have walked away understanding that investing in energy efficiency is as at least as lucrative if not more profitable than investing in Google.
CleanTechies: How do you think people will use the information you gave them to improve the green building industry?
Matt: I hope to generate more intelligent conversations around how we value “green.” If I had one main objective to relay it would be that we have the tools to prove the value of sustainability but we are just not doing a good enough job to date. I hope from there people will find ways to carry the message along and encourage others to join the movement.
CleanTechies: What is the focus of your firm’s work and how are you trying to change the conversation?
Matt: My firm focuses on making the business case for sustainability. We are a consultancy that uses tools such as discounted cash flow and energy models to prove the value of energy efficient decisions to our clients. Many of our clients come to us looking for efficiency through the LEED process. Our development of the LEED EDGE tool has helped several firms realize significant efficiency gains through making the LEED Certification process easy and virtually paperless.
Why I was confused?
Throughout the three days, and from almost every person I talked to, people had an encouraging outlook on the future of green building. They cited the mass amounts of money headed its way and they mentioned the new standards mandated by the government as proof that green building is here to stay.
One of the most exciting talks I heard was Panama Bartholomy’s talk on “Greening Existing Buildings: The Biggest Piece of the Low Carbon Puzzle.”
In it he mentioned the importance of the existing building retrofit market on reaching all of the carbon emissions goals being sent down from the politicos in Washington and Sacramento. He also outlined where some of the stimulus money was headed, but very little about how exactly it was going to be used or who was in charge of oversight.
I wouldn’t call it lack of foresight but clearly the infrastructure is not ready for all the money flowing in, though there are signs of life. Panama mentioned one specific financing optioned that would encourage homeowners to improve their home’s energy performance. PACE districts allow homeowners to implement energy efficient measures with no upfront cost to them. They pay for the measures with increased property taxes, which should be more than offset by the resulting energy savings.
Some recent success.
Joe Biden recently announced his contribution to the movement. He asked the Council Of Environmental Quality, earlier this year, to come up with a study on how the government could guide the development of a home energy efficiency retrofit market. They produced the “Recovery Through Retrofit” report. It offered several recommendations: more access to information for homeowners, more transparent and accessible financing, and a plan for worker training.
All these things are necessary and important but this report fails in going far enough in its scope. It doesn’t hash out any programs or concrete plans on how to bring all of its recommendations to fruition.
The “Retrofit Ramp-Up”, a program recently drawn up to fund retrofit programs, has started receiving applications for qualified projects to receive funding but this program also has its flaws. It helps facilitate funding but only for those who go looking for it and have the knowledge and expertise to get it.
Compare this approach to the one the government has taken with auto industry. The government does not offer funding to improve average MPG of automakers’ fleets to meet more stringent standards; instead they mandate the new standards. Why couldn’t the government take more of a hard-line approach, similar to this example, with the existing home and building retrofit market? I like the idea of money going to the right people but couple that with some mandated standards that have teeth, then everyone will be forced to see what they sometimes are too stubborn to realize, that green building can save them money.
My solution.
California already has a leg up on most states and could act as an example for the nation to follow. State government officials could begin by using the power of AB 1103 to get ENERGY STAR scores for all commercial buildings in the State.
The “Recovery Through Retrofit” report also called for an ENERGY STAR program for homes to be created, which could provide later structure to update this solution.
After compiling all of the ENERGY STAR scores, the government could mandate and directly fund the retrofit of the worst buildings, possibly the lowest 10% of ENERGY STAR scores. These buildings would then go through an energy audit where the best energy conservation measures could be identified.
Payback could be formulated in either of two ways. Either the government could get paid back with the energy savings resulting from the increased efficiency or they could increase property taxes and have the building owner get the energy savings, similar to PACE districts. In both cases retrofits would be mandated, but the key is that these changes would not cost a dime in the end.
Energy savings in these wasteful buildings would be very high and would easily pay for the retrofits within a couple of years. The government could then use the projects as an example of the potential of the industry, further enticing interest and generating new projects. These projects would also create numerous jobs. Connected to the program would have to be a mandated education curriculum to get contractors up to speed on how to implement the upgrades. This education would further improve the future of the retrofit industry by increasing the stock of qualified workers.
— The EBS Team —
January 5, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: Energy, Government Mandates, Green Building
This article was written and submitted by Chris Birk
D.C.’s Green Building Dilemma
By Chris Birk of www.suretybonds.com/edu
When it passed in 2006, Washington, D.C.’s Green Building Act was heralded as an innovative way to incorporate green efficiencies into private and public building projects.
But not everyone was thrilled, especially surety companies — the industry that issues bonds that guarantee work and protect taxpayer and private dollars. Three years later, there’s still a bit of a battle brewing that could jeopardize the course of green building in the District of Columbia and perhaps beyond.
At issue is the idea of a “green” performance bond. In general, performance bonds are a standard risk-management tool and a part of most building projects across the country. They basically guarantee that a contractor performs the job up to code and contract.
Usually, these are the standard fare — surety underwriters examine a contractor’s finances, experience, cash flow and ability to get the job done. Then, they examine the contract to see what specific industry standards are supposed to be met. If everything fits, the surety typically issues a performance bond.
But green building introduces a new, scary wrinkle for surety companies. A contract that demands a contractor achieve a certain degree of efficiency — say, for a decline in carbon dioxide emissions or water efficiency — likely requires certification by a third party, like the U.S. Green Building Council.
That raises immediate red flags for a surety. They’re on the hook financially if a contractor fails to perform. The question is, can they be liable if a contractor fails to achieve the necessary level of energy efficiency — if, for example, carbon dioxide emissions aren’t eliminated to the required level.
That’s a major reason why most surety companies refrain from bonding a contractor when a contract requires specific energy efficiencies or any type of third-party certification.
But that’s the law as written in Washington. The new regulation, which takes full effect in 2012, mandates that projects that fall short of green building standards have to pay claims into a city fund dedicated to green building.
Needless to say, the surety industry has been up in arms over the provision.
After months of back and forth, industry leaders and D.C. officials are working on a compromise while re-examining the law’s language. A public hearing regarding the issue was slated to be held on Dec. 14.
Without a compromise, contractors and project developers in D.C. might have to shoulder more risk than ever before. And that could have serious repercussions for building, not just in the District but across the country.
— The EBS Team —
November 24, 2009
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy
Tags: Cap and Trade, Energy, Green Building
As debate heats up around the proposals for clean energy legislation in Congress, one of the main points of contention is the amount of money it will cost. More specifically, everyone wants to know how the average American household will be impacted by the respective energy bills in the House (Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy and Security Act) and the Senate (Kerry-Boxer’s Clean Energy Jobs and American
Power Act). This article will investigate the change in energy prices one can expect from legislation that could be passed within the coming months, and try to sift through the wide discrepancy in figures that are being tossed around. Then some recommendations will be presented as to how energy usage can be reduced, to preempt any anticipated rises in cost.
How much will it cost?
How much more money per year should a typical American household expect to pay if clean energy legislation were to pass? Depending on where one gets their information from, this figure varies hundreds of dollars!
It helps to learn where the information is coming from. Analyzing the House’s proposal, the U.S. Government’s Environmental Protection Agency found that, “the overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).” Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost to be about $175 per household. On the other hand, an August report by the conservative Heritage Foundation claims that “a typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs” after the passage of Waxman-Markey.
Although it may be difficult to agree on how many more dollars Americans can expect to pay from clean energy legislation, nearly every study concurs on one fact – we can expect energy prices to increase in the future with the passage of a clean energy act. For anyone in the country paying utility bills, from homeowners to property managers to retail owners, this means they can expect to see their electricity prices rise.
So what should we do? Fight legislation?
Hardly. Aside from ecological and health arguments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global climate change, there would be catastrophic impacts on the world’s economy were we to proceed at our current pace of fossil fuel consumption. In fact, most scientists argue that we need to take much more drastic and strict measures at combating climate change than even the more ambitious proposals worldwide are suggesting – meaning many feel that the House and Senate acts would not go far enough in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, fighting any attempt at curbing greenhouse gas emissions (such as stymieing clean energy legislation or not participating in international climate talks) is near-sighted and irresponsible, because of the enormous toll we would be placing on our future’s environment and economy. The current House and Senate proposals may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction – so let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A better solution: Energy efficiency!
A better solution: start using less electricity and less energy as we make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The best way to do this is by reducing energy demand and using energy more efficiently. How does one do that?
A good place to start is with an energy audit of a building, which analyzes the energy usage of a building and recommends measures to improve efficiency. These are often done for free or at a discounted rate by a utility company. Another option is to hire a certified Home Energy Rater, who typically use high-end equipment to thoroughly diagnose a building’s efficiency. It is up to the user to implement the recommend improvements once the audit is complete.
Another recommendation is to have the systems of the building commissioned. Commissioning entails hiring a commissioning agent to come inspect elements of the building – such as the HVAC system, lighting, water heating – and make sure they are all operating at maximum efficiency and as they were intended to do. Then the agent will make the adjustments to correct any deficiencies and have the systems running at optimal performance levels.
For a larger building or commercial space (such as an office or retail store), one can attempt to implement an overhaul in operations and management that will demand less energy use by the individuals occupying the space. There are several programs that exist which provide guidelines for instituting these changes, which include such recommendations as switching to more efficient appliance to informing building occupants about energy-saving techniques.
In any approach, it is important to use the tools and information available and put them to use. Whether this is the latest in IT or simply common sense that should be shared, applying intelligence to our system of energy consumption will reap huge rewards.
—The EBS Team—
September 17, 2009
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: Government rebates, Green Building, Green Building in the News
How the Stimulus Impacts Green Building
Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:55pm ED
By Jacob Arlein
I don’t know if it is Obama or Al Gore but the US government is starting to understand the need for sustainability. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Obama in February to stimulate the sagging US economy. By injecting $690 billion to improve infrastructure…
The previous article that was posted on this blog, written by Jacob Arlein, was recently picked up by a variety of blogs and newspapers including Reuters. Here is the link to the Reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenBuildings/idUS389286768020090909. This is a testament to both the strength of the article and the recent surge in interest from mainstream media sources, and subsequently the average reader, about green building.
— The EBS Team —
Recent Comments