Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Energy-Efficiency Standards and Green Building Certification
Systems Used by the Department of Defense for Military
Construction and Major Renovations
Committee to Evaluate Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability Standards Used by the Department of
Defense for Military Construction and Repair
Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible
for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report was primarily supported by Sponsor Award No. XW001-XW994 between the National Academy
of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: xxx-x-xxx-0XXXX-X
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-xxx-XXXXX-X
Copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president
of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government,
the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and
vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R4
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE ENERGY-EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY
STANDARDS USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR
MICHAEL R. JOHNSON, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Chair
PAUL FISETTE, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
CHRIS HENDRICKSON, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
ROSALIE RUEGG, TIA Consulting, Emerald Isle, North Carolina
MAXINE L. SAVITZ, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, California
THOMAS P. SEAGER, Arizona State University, Tempe
ADRIAN TULUCA, Viridian Energy and Environmental, Norwalk, Connecticut
Staff
LYNDA STANLEY, Study Director, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE)
HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate, BICE
TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator, BICE
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
v
OCR for page R6
BOARD ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT
DAVID J. NASH, MELE Associates Inc., Vienna, Virginia, Chair
ADJO A. AMEKUDZI, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ALFREDO H.-S. ANG, University of California, Irvine
JAMES BAGIAN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
HILLARY BROWN, New Civic Works, New York, New York
ROSS COROTIS, University of Colorado, Boulder
ARNOLD FIELDS, U.S. Marines (retired), Arlington, Virginia
JESUS de la GARZA, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg
G. EDWARD GIBSON, Arizona State University, Tempe
PETER MARSHALL, U.S. Navy (retired), Norfolk, Virginia
JAMES B. PORTER, JR., Sustainable Operations Solutions LLC, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
JAMES RISPOLI, Project Time and Cost, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina
LYNN SCARLETT, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
JANICE L. TUCHMAN, Engineering News Record, New York, New York
JAMES P. WHITTAKER, Facility Engineering Associates, Fairfax, Virginia
Staff
DENNIS CHAMOT, Interim Director
LYNDA STANLEY, Senior Program Officer
HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate
TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
ANN LARROW, Program Associate
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
vi
OCR for page R7
Preface
The federal government operates a portfolio of almost one million facilities (429,000 buildings
and 482,000 other structures) whose core purposes are to support the conduct of public policy, to help
defend the national interest, and to provide services to the American public. How well federal facilities
perform in terms of resource use (energy, water, materials, fossil fuels) and indoor environmental quality,
and how much they cost to build, operate, and maintain, can support or hinder the ability of federal
agencies to achieve their missions on a routine basis and during disasters. Federal facilities’ performance
and cost also have effects on the environment, the health and safety of building occupants, and on
taxpayers. For these reasons, Congress has enacted laws and several presidential administrations have
issued executive orders to improve the overall performance of federal facilities and to reduce the costs of
operating them. Those mandates set performance objectives for high-performance federal buildings, also
referred to as green buildings.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the military services—the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air
Force, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps—and other DOD components together represent the largest
single owner of facilities among all federal agencies. DOD components own and operate more than one-
half million facilities (297,000 buildings and 211,000 additional structures) in the United States and
abroad to support national defense-related activities.
To help meet congressional and executive mandates regarding high-performance federal
facilities, DOD and the military services have been using building standards and green building
certification systems to design and evaluate the performance of their buildings for more than a decade.
Over time, DOD has modified its internal policies regarding the use of standards as knowledge about and
experience with the design and operation of high-performance buildings has increased in both the public
and private sectors.
Because DOD has invested and continues to invest billions of dollars in its facilities, the
congressional defense committees want to ensure that DOD facilities are being operated efficiently in
terms of cost and resource use. Section 2830 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (NDAA 2012) requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees with a cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, and long-term payback of specific energy-
efficiency and sustainability standards used by DOD for military construction and renovation. The
standards to be evaluated are American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 189.1-2011 for High-Performance Green Buildings, ASHRAE Energy
Standard 90.1-2010, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building
certification system and other American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited standards, which
include a version of the Green Globes green building certification system. DOD’s report to the
congressional defense committees must also include a copy of DOD’s policy prescribing a comprehensive
strategy for the pursuit of design and building standards across the department that include specific
energy-efficiency standards and sustainable design attributes for military construction.
To provide independent, objective advice in developing DOD’s response to Congress, the Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment asked the National Research Council (NRC)
to establish an ad hoc committee of experts to complete three related tasks:
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
vii
OCR for page R8
1. Conduct a literature review that synthesizes the state-of-the-knowledge about the costs and
benefits, return on investment, and long-term payback of specified design standards related to sustainable
buildings;
2. Evaluate a consultant-generated methodology and analysis of the cost-benefit, return on
investment, and long-term payback for specified building design standards and evaluate the consultant’s
application of the methodology using empirical data from DOD buildings;
3. Identify potential factors and approaches that the DOD should consider in developing a
comprehensive strategy for its entire portfolio of facilities that includes standards for energy-efficiency
and sustainable design.
The NRC Committee on Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability Standards Used by the Department
of Defense for Military Construction and Repair included seven experts from government, industry, and
academia. The committee held its first meeting at the end of June 2012 and was charged to complete its
three related tasks within 6 months. The committee’s report on those tasks is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 sets the context for the congressional request, provides information on federal laws
and mandates, identifies the committee’s statement of task and related issues, and describes the
committee’s approach to that task.
• Chapter 2 describes factors related to the DOD operating environment that are relevant to the
task, describes ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2010 and 189.1-2011, and the LEED and Green Globes green
building certification systems, and identifies similarities and differences between the two systems.
• Chapter 3 provides background information on selected economic performance methods and
measures, issues related to performance measurement of buildings, provides the committee’s evaluation
of the DOD consultant’s report and identifies issues related to the potential application of the consultant’s
analytical approach in the DOD operating environment.
• Chapter 4 summarizes the literature review conducted by the committee and the committee’s
conclusions.
• Chapter 5 presents the committee’s findings from the literature search and its evaluation of
the DOD consultant’s report. Based on those findings and the committee members’ expertise and
experience, the committee identified 5 recommended approaches for DOD’s consideration as it develops
its comprehensive strategy and its response to Congress.
I personally consider it an honor and privilege to have served and worked with the other members
of the committee, each a recognized expert in his or her field and each of whom volunteered their time
and knowledge as a public service. As a team we appreciate our unwavering support and timely assistance
from the NRC staff.
DOD has been a leader in adopting and adapting energy-efficiency and sustainability criteria and
standards for buildings for more than 15 years. Given the relatively narrow scope of its tasks and the 6-
month time frame, the NRC committee could not highlight all of the programs and initiatives for
improving the performance of facilities that are underway within DOD and the military services. The
committee is aware, however, that those initiatives include comprehensive efforts to reduce the energy
use of DOD installations, the development and testing of new building-related technologies, and the
evaluation of the performance of its facilities, among many others. Nonetheless, in this report the
committee has identified additional opportunities for DOD to lead the way in improving the performance
of its buildings based on measured results of the actual outcomes of high-performance buildings. Through
collaboration with other federal agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and the private
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
viii
OCR for page R9
sector, DOD can also take a leadership role in improving the knowledge and practices required to
improve the performance of buildings throughout the United States. Through those and other efforts,
DOD has a unique opportunity to lower the total cost of ownership of its facilities over the long term, to
reduce environmental impacts, to improve the quality of life for the military and their families, and to
benefit the entire nation.
Michael R. Johnson, Chair
Committee on Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability
Standards Used by the Department of Defense for
Military Construction and Repair
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
ix
OCR for page R10
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives
and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical
comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure
that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study
charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Stephen Berry, University of Chicago,
Bill Browning, Terrapin/Bright Green LLC,
Marco Castaldi, City College of New York,
Ronald Filadelfo, CNA,
David Hungerford, California Energy Commission,
Peter Morris, Davis Langdon US,
Annie Pearce, Virginia Polytechnic and State University,
Bob Tatum, Stanford University,
John Walewski, Texas A&M University,
Alan Washburn, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, and
Richard Wright, National Institute of Standards and Technology (retired).
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions,
they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the
report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Elizabeth M. Drake, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, she was responsible for
making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the
final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
x
OCR for page R11
Contents
SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
Context, 1-1
Federal Laws and Mandates, 1-1
Building Standards and Green Building Certification Systems, 1-4
Impetus for this Study and the Statement of Task, 1-5
Complexity of the Task, 1-6
The Committee’s Approach, 1-8
2 THE DOD OPERATING ENVIRONMENT, BUILDING STANDARDS, 2-1
AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
The DOD Operating Environment, 2-1
ASHRAE Standards, 2-2
Green Building Certification Systems, 2-6
Similarities and Differences Between the LEED and Green Globes
Green Building Certification Systems, 2-9
3 THE COMMITTEE’S EVALUATION OF THE DOD CONSULTANT’S REPORT 3-1
Definition and Use of Selected Economic Performance Methods and Measures, 3-1
Issues Related to the Measurement of Building Performance, 3-4
Description of the DOD Consultant’s Analytical Approach, 3-5
Committee’s Evaluation of the DOD Consultant’s Analytical Approach, 3-14
4 BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE 4-1
OR GREEN BUILDINGS: SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Findings from the Studies Analyzed, 4-2
Energy Use, 4-8
Water Use, 4-13
Operations and Maintenance Costs, 4-14
Indoor Environmental Quality and Worker Productivity, 4-14
Incremental Costs to Design and Construct High-Performance Buildings, 4-16
Conclusions, 4-18
5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED APPROACHES FOR DOD’S CONSIDERATION 5-1
Findings, 5-2
Recommended Approaches for DOD’s Consideration, 5-6
6 REFERENCES 6-1
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xi
OCR for page R12
APPENDIXES
A Biosketches of Committee Members A-1
B Committee Meetings, Briefings, and Public Comment B-1
C The DOD Consultant’s Report C-1
D Literature Review D-1
E Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High-Performance and Sustainable Buildings E-1
F Acronyms and Abbreviations F-1
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xii
