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 1
Summary
Congress has an ongoing interest in ensuring that the 500,000 buildings and other structures
owned and operated by the Department of Defense (DOD) are operated effectively in terms of cost and
resource use. Section 2830 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year (FY) 2012 (NDAA
2012) requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the
energy-efficiency and sustainability standards used by DOD for military construction and major
renovations of buildings. DOD’s report must include a cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, and
long-term payback for the building standards and green building certification systems identified below:
(A) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 189.1-2011 for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential.
(B) ASHRAE Energy Standard 90.1-2010 for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential.
(C) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver, Gold, and Platinum
certification for green buildings, as well as the LEED Volume certification.
(D) Other American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards.
DOD’s report to the congressional defense committees must also include a copy of DOD 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 based on the cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, and demonstrated payback required
for the aforementioned building standards and green building certification systems.
THE COMMITTEE’S TASK
To obtain independent, objective advice in developing its response to Section 2830 of NDAA
2012, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment asked the National
Research Council (NRC) to establish an ad hoc committee of experts to undertake three related tasks:
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 specified design standards to be evaluated are ASHRAE Energy Standard 90.1-2010 for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential; ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 for High-Performance Green
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver,
Gold, Platinum, and Volume Certifications; and other ANSI accredited standards such as Green Globes.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-1
OCR for page 2
It became evident at the first committee meeting that the wording of task (2) was not clear in
regard to the relationship between the NRC, DOD, and the consultant, or the work being undertaken by
the consultant. For purposes of clarity, the committee notes that the consultant was hired directly by DOD
under a separate contract and the consultant’s report is contained in its entirety in Appendix C.
The DOD consultant’s report developed an analytical approach that included a traditional benefit-
cost analysis to calculate long-term benefits and costs, adjusted rate of return on investment, and payback
of ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2010 and 189.1-2011 and of the LEED and Green Globes green building
certification systems; sensitivity analyses using a range of scenarios that represented uncertainty in future
conditions; and a test of the analytical approach using data from DOD buildings to identify issues that
might arise if the approach were to be applied in the DOD operating environment.
The committee evaluated the cost-benefit and sensitivity analyses as outlined in task (2).
Regarding the consultant’s application of the methodology using empirical data from DOD buildings, it is
important to note that the consultant’s purpose was not to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for a sample of
DOD buildings but to identify issues that might arise if the proposed analytical approach were to be used
by DOD. Thus, the committee evaluated the potential application of the consultant’s analytical approach
to the DOD operating environment.
A clearer description of task (2) would read as follows:
(2) Evaluate a report developed under a separate contract by a DOD consultant that focuses on a
methodology and analysis of the cost-benefit, return on investment, and long-term payback for
specified building design standards and evaluate the potential application of the consultant’s
analytical approach to the DOD operating environment.
HIGH-PERFORMANCE OR GREEN BUILDINGS
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) defines the attributes of high-
performance buildings, which include reductions of energy, water, material, and fossil fuel use, improved
indoor environmental quality for occupants, improved worker productivity, and lower life-cycle costs
when compared to baselines for building performance. The terms “green” and “sustainable” are often
used interchangeably with high-performance buildings, but there are no standard definitions for those
terms. In this report, high-performance refers to buildings that are specifically called out as meeting the
EISA standard. Green is a more inclusive term used to indicate buildings that are designed to be highly
energy efficient, to meet green building certification systems, or to be otherwise regarded as sustainable.
Buildings that are not described as high-performance or green are referred to as conventional buildings.
Building standards and green building certification systems have been developed by nonprofit
organizations to provide a framework for the design and operation of high-performance and green
buildings. Building standards typically establish minimum requirements for the design of one aspect of a
building’s performance (for example, energy). Green building certification systems, in contrast, take a
“whole building” approach to design by accounting for the interrelationships among building design,
materials, mechanical systems, technologies, and operating practices.
LEED, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and Green Globes, licensed by
the Green Building Initiative (GBI), are the green building certification systems most commonly used in
the United States. EISA 2007 requires federal agencies to use a green building certification system for
new construction and major renovations of buildings.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-2
OCR for page 3
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE METHODS AND MEASURES
Several closely related methods and measures are used for determining the economic
performance of buildings, building systems, and components. There are salient differences among the
methods and measures that bear on their correct application and interpretation for evaluating the cost-
effectiveness of DOD construction and renovation projects.
Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is most often used to determine if a government program or
investment can be justified on economic grounds. It entails assigning monetary values to societal benefits
from the program/investment, as well as to assessing direct program/investment costs, all over a specified
time horizon (e.g., 20 years), and finding the difference between benefits and costs as net present value
(NPV) benefits. A positive NPV means that total benefits exceed total costs, and the program or other
investment is cost effective. BCA can also be used to make mutually exclusive choices among building
design, systems, and components. The choice with the highest NPV benefits is preferred on economic
grounds. Related additional economic performance measures—benefit-cost ratios, internal rates of return
on investment, adjusted internal rates of return on investment—can be computed from the time-
denominated cash flows of benefits and costs of BCA.
Payback refers to the time period at which initial investment is recovered. Payback measures do
not include future savings that may occur after the initial investment is recovered. For that reason,
payback measures are not appropriate for comparing the long-term economic effectiveness of buildings or
projects, because the alternative with the shortest payback period may not be the alternative with the
greatest NPV benefits or the greatest return on investment.
COMPLEXITY OF THE TASK
The committee’s completion of its three related tasks was complicated by the following factors:
• Difficulty of measuring building performance objectively. The research on high-performance
or green buildings inherently incorporates some level of subjectivity because of the unique nature of
buildings, diversity in baselines for comparison studies, and the lack of a standard protocol for research
on this topic.
All buildings differ in terms of location, materials, design, size, function, technologies,
operational practices, and other factors, which influence overall building performance. The diversity in
building design and the multitude of factors that contribute to any building’s performance make it
difficult to isolate the specific factors that contribute to energy use, water use, or other performance
measures.
There are no national baselines from which to measure the performance of multiple factors
associated with high-performance or green buildings. Instead, some baselines have been developed to
measure individual factors such as energy.
The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is the only national data
source of detailed characteristics and energy use of U.S. commercial buildings. EISA 2007 establishes the
CBECS as a baseline within the definition of high-performance buildings. However, there are well-
documented deficiencies in the CBECS database, as detailed in Chapter 3. There are no national
databases for water use, operations and maintenance, indoor environmental quality, or worker
productivity as it relates to buildings. Baselines for comparing those factors are typically developed
differently for individual studies.
There is no standard protocol for conducting research on high-performance or green buildings,
although some studies do use similar methodologies or evaluation methods. Together all of these factors
hinder objective comparisons across studies and preclude definitive, fully documented findings. The
subjectivity inherent in making comparisons across research studies instead requires judgments based on
a “preponderance” of evidence.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-3
OCR for page 4
• Recent release of ASHRAE Standards 189.1-2011 and 90.1-2010 and the LEED Volume
certification program. Few, if any buildings have been built to the latest versions of the ASHRAE
standards. The only information available about the expected performance of buildings constructed to
those standards was based on the same design models used in their development. The LEED Volume
certification is also a new program for which there is little documented experience thus far.
• Continuous improvement of building standards and green building certification systems and
related factors. Building standards and green building certification systems are regularly updated to take
into account new objectives, techniques, knowledge, and technologies for buildings. As a result, multiple
versions of each exist. With a few exceptions, research studies do not identify the specific versions of the
standards and certification systems under which the buildings studied were constructed. Instead, the
research typically compares a sample of buildings that are defined as green to a sample of conventional
buildings. Studies related to LEED-certified buildings typically include buildings constructed under
different versions of LEED that meet a range of certification levels, so even these have great variability.
All of those factors and the incorporation by reference of building standards such as ASHRAE 90.1 into
green building certification systems create confounding factors for research studies, which hinder the
attribution of specific benefits and costs to specific standards or certification systems.
• Quantity and quality of the literature. Although there are hundreds of publications related to
high-performance or green buildings, relatively few are well-designed empirical studies. Of these, several
focused specifically on LEED-certified buildings; none focused on Green Globes-certified buildings. The
only data available on the actual performance of Green Globes-certified buildings were individual case
studies.
Other factors that made the task more complex included issues related to qualitative and
quantitative measurements of building performance, measured data versus modeled data for energy and
water use, and the inclusion of a mix of building types in most empirical studies.
THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH
The committee focused on the main purposes of the statement of task but did not have time to
conduct extensive additional investigations. Thus, the committee’s report does not evaluate building
standards or certification systems that were not specified, describe the various debates about the use of
green building certification systems, or acknowledge the full array of initiatives that are underway at
DOD. Such initiatives include approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and for net-zero energy
buildings.
For its evaluation of the research literature, the committee determined it would focus on studies
that met the following criteria:
• Timeframe. The committee relied on studies published in 2004 or later because the first
studies evaluating the incremental costs of LEED-certified buildings were published in 2004. The first
evaluations of a sample of at least six high-performance or green buildings in the United States were
published in 2006.
• Robustness. The committee focused on studies with clearly stated objectives, a clearly
defined methodology, findings based on empirical data, and studies with a sample size of at least six
buildings. Individual case studies were not evaluated because of the prevalence of bias, error, and chance.
• Relevancy to the DOD operating environment. DOD typically owns and operates buildings
for 30 years or longer. Although the committee identified a number of robust, timely studies related to the
market value, rental rates, vacancy rates, and appraised value of green buildings compared to
conventional buildings, the committee did not evaluate those studies in detail because market factors
typically are not relevant to the DOD operating environment.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-4
OCR for page 5
Based on those criteria, the committee identified 25 studies that served as the basis for its
findings. The studies are summarized in Chapters 2 and 4 and Appendix D.
In regard to the DOD consultant’s report, the committee discussed the proposed methodology
with the DOD consultant and representatives of ASHRAE, the USGBC, and GBI on June 28-29, 2012.
The committee suggested changes to the methodology for the consultant’s consideration. In September
2012, the committee received the consultant’s final report, Cost-Effectiveness Study of Various
Sustainable Building Standards in Response to NDAA 2012 Section 2830 Requirements for an in-depth
evaluation (see Chapter 3 and Appendix C).
FINDINGS
The committee’s findings are based on the literature review, the evaluation of the DOD
consultant’s study, and the experience and expertise of its members. The findings are presented below
with a brief explanation of the committee’s rationale. Chapter 5 contains more detailed explanations of
the rationale for the committee’s findings and recommended approaches.
Finding 1: The committee did not identify any research studies that conducted a traditional
benefit-cost analysis to determine the long-term net present value savings, return on
investment, or long-term payback related to the use of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010,
ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011, and the LEED or Green Globes green building certification
systems.
Of the 25 studies that met the committee’s criteria for timeframe, robustness, and relevancy to the
DOD operating environment, only two (Turner, 2006; Kats, 2010) provided some analyses of NPV
benefits, return on investment, or payback associated with high-performance or green buildings. Those
studies, however, did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the specific building standards or green
building certification systems. Instead they looked at the cost-effectiveness of green buildings compared
to conventional buildings.
Finding 2: There is some limited evidence to indicate that provisions within ASHRAE
Standard 189.1-2011 may need to be selectively adopted if use of this standard is to be cost
effective in the DOD operating environment.
ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 contains mandatory requirements that limit the ability of DOD to
adapt the standard to its operating environment. The foreword to ASHRAE 189.1-2011 states that “new
provisions within the standard were not uniformly subjected to economic assessment” and that cost-
benefit assessment was not a necessary criterion for acceptance of any given proposed change to the
standard from the 2009 version. The study Incremental Costs of Meeting ASHRAE Standard 189.1 at Air
Force Facilities (LMI, 2011) and the committee’s review of ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 identified
some mandatory requirements that may not be cost effective or feasible in the DOD operating
environment.
Finding 3. Research studies indicate that the incremental costs to design and construct high-
performance or green buildings typically range from 0 to 8 percent higher than the costs to
design and construct conventional buildings, depending on the methodology used in the
study and the type of building analyzed. The additional incremental costs to design and
construct high-performance or green buildings are relatively small when compared to total
life-cycle costs.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-5
OCR for page 6
Several studies focused on the incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or
green buildings when compared to conventional buildings. Those studies used different methodologies to
calculate the additional costs of design and construction and applied them to different types of buildings.
The studies indicated that the additional first costs for high-performance or green buildings would
typically range from 0 to 8 percent higher than the costs to design and construct conventional buildings,
although the costs ranged up to 18 percent higher in a few instances. The study with the largest sample
size indicated that, on average, the incremental first costs of green buildings were within 2 percent of the
costs of conventional buildings,
Over the life cycle of a building, design and construction costs typically range from 5 to 10
percent of total costs, while operations and maintenance costs account for 60 to 80 percent of total costs.
Thus, the additional incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or green buildings are
relatively small when considered as part of total life-cycle costs.
Finding 4: The analytical approach proposed by the DOD consultant has merit as a decision
support tool in the DOD operating environment if appropriate and verifiable data are
available for conducting benefit-cost and sensitivity analyses.
The DOD consultant conducted a traditional benefit-cost analysis to calculate NPV benefits and
adjusted rate of return on investment to determine the cost-effectiveness of the two ASHRAE Standards
and the two green building certification systems. The consultant also conducted a payback analysis as
required by NDAA 2012. The consultant’s proposed analytical approach expanded on the traditional BCA
to incorporate factors related to geographic location, climate conditions, and local factors for utility costs.
Sensitivity analyses were also incorporated to test a range of scenarios that represented uncertain future
conditions related to discount rates, water prices, and energy prices. To the committee’s knowledge, those
factors are not required by DOD or by other federal regulations. The committee believes that the
consultant’s analytical approach has merit as one of an array of decision support tools to be used by DOD
for evaluating investments in new construction or major renovations.
However, the committee has significant concerns about the sources of data available and the
application of those data in the consultant’s analysis, including estimates of the incremental costs to
design and construct high-performance or green buildings; those concerns are detailed in Chapters 3 and
5. As a consequence, the committee cannot support the consultant’s findings related to the absolute NPV
benefits calculated for the ASHRAE standards, LEED, or Green Globes.
Finding 5: The evidence from the literature search indicates that high-performance or
green buildings can result in significant reductions in energy use and water use. The cost
savings associated with the reductions in energy and water use will vary by geographic
region, by climate zone, and by building type.
Thirteen of the 25 studies evaluated by the committee focused on measured actual energy use in
buildings based on utility bills. All thirteen found that high-performance or green buildings, on average
(i.e., over a group of buildings), used 5 to 30 percent less site energy than similar conventional buildings.
The six studies that provided some evaluation of water use found that high-performance or green
buildings on average used 8 to 11 percent less water than conventional buildings.
Seven studies provided some analysis of the performance of buildings certified at different levels
of LEED. They indicated that the majority of LEED-Silver and LEED-Gold and Platinum buildings
studied used significantly less energy and less water than conventional buildings.
The long-term cost savings that can be achieved through reductions in energy and water use over
the life cycle of buildings will depend, in part, on local utility prices and on heating and cooling loads
related to climate zones. During the 30 or more years a DOD building is in use, those differences could be
significant. Across a portfolio of facilities, local price factors may be an important consideration for DOD
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-6
OCR for page 7
in determining which investments in military construction or major renovations will be the most cost
effective over the long term.
Finding 6: Not every individual high-performance or green building achieved energy or
water savings when compared to similar conventional buildings.
Although high-performance or green buildings saved energy and water, on average, within a
sample of green buildings, some individual buildings had significantly greater reductions than the
average, and some did not perform as well as conventional buildings. Similarly, there were LEED-Silver
and LEED-Gold-certified buildings that used more energy and more water than conventional buildings.
The research studies speculated about reasons why this was so, but did not provide sufficient evidence to
draw generalizations regarding why some high-performance or green buildings significantly
outperformed conventional buildings and why others did not, although building type was clearly a factor.
Finding 7: In general, the quantities of energy and water used by a building once it is in
operation are greater than the quantities of energy and water predicted by building design
models, if these models are specifically created for compliance with LEED, Green Globes,
or ASHRAE standards.
All building standards and green building certification systems require that a building design
meet or surpass an energy efficiency standard. In the case of LEED, Green Globes, and ASHRAE 189.1,
this standard is ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1. An energy model created to be compared with the
ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 standard necessarily underestimates the energy use and the energy cost of the
building once constructed and in operation. This is because (1) such models assume perfection in
manufacturing, installation, and operation of buildings and their systems; and (2) such models do not
include certain heat losses because they are too difficult to calculate.
Energy and water use should be predicted with an “actual use” model that takes into account
factors not considered by the LEED, GBI, or ASHRAE design models. An “actual use” model starts with
the model created for compliance with LEED, Green Globes, or with ASHRAE 189.1, and then
incorporates real-life assumptions of manufacturing, installation, and operation. It also incorporates the
three-dimensional heat losses.
An “actual use” model created during design can be significantly improved in its predictive value
if it is updated with as-built/as-operated conditions. Imperfections during construction can be observed
and incorporated in the model, change orders can be modeled as well, and variations in occupancy
captured (e.g., different plug loads). An “actual use/as-built model” is best suited for use as a benchmark
to assess whether the building performs as it should and to correct deficiencies in operation.
The difference between modeled energy or water use and actual energy or water use is important
for facilities managers and other decision makers when communicating with other stakeholders. Using
data from LEED, GBI, or ASHRAE design models in decision making or in communications can set
unrealistically high expectations that cannot be met. Using data from an as-built model will provide more
realistic performance data. However, conveying information based on measured energy or water use will
provide the most realistic data for decision-making and will improve the credibility of facilities managers
and decision makers with other stakeholders.
Finding 8. DOD has the opportunity to continue to take a leadership role in improving the
knowledge base about high-performance buildings, improving decision-support tools, and
improving building models by collecting data on measured energy, water, and other
resource use for its portfolio of buildings and by collaborating with others.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-7
OCR for page 8
The data currently available to support decision-making about investments in military
construction and major renovation projects is inadequate. Under the Energy Performance Act of 2005, all
federal buildings are required to be metered by fiscal year (FY) 2012. Metered data for energy and water
use can be used to improve decision support tools and processes, to establish baselines for conventional
buildings, and to measure the performance of high-performance or green buildings against those
baselines. DOD could work with the Department of Energy and others to improve the available
knowledge and databases related to high-performance buildings, to the benefit of the federal government
and society.
Finding 9. Effective operation of high-performance buildings requires well-trained facilities
managers.
High-performance or green buildings incorporate new building design processes, new
technologies, and new materials. Effective operation of high-performance buildings requires well-trained
facilities managers who understand the interrelationships among building technologies, occupant
behavior, and overall building performance, as recognized through the enactment of the Federal Buildings
Personnel Training Act of 2010.
RECOMMENDED APPROACHES FOR DOD’S CONSIDERATION
Decisions about investments related to new construction and major renovations of buildings at
DOD installations are not reducible to a single decision rule (such as benefit-cost maximization), nor are
facilities managers responsible to a single stakeholder. In fact, facilities managers must assess the relative
merits of facilities improvement projects against performance with respect to multiple decision criteria
and justify recommendations to stakeholder groups and governing bodies that hold different and
sometimes conflicting priorities. Trade-offs are required for most building projects, including design and
construction costs (i.e., first costs) versus operating and maintenance and deconstruction costs, resilience
and flexibility factors versus worker productivity, and so forth.
Based on its findings and on its own expertise and experience with building standards and green
building certification systems, the committee recommends that DOD consider the following approaches
as it develops a comprehensive strategy for its entire portfolio of facilities to include standards for energy
efficiency and sustainable design.
Recommended Approach 1. Continue to require that new buildings or major renovations be
designed to achieve a LEED-Silver or equivalent rating in order to meet the multiple
objectives embedded in laws and mandates related to high-performance buildings.
The preponderance of available evidence indicates that green building certification systems and
their referenced building standards offer frameworks for reducing energy and water use in buildings,
compared to design approaches and practices used for conventional buildings. They may also result in
improved indoor environmental quality, improved worker productivity, and lower operations and
maintenance costs, although the evidence is very limited. Green building certification systems can also
help to establish explicit and traceable objectives for future building performance and a feedback loop to
determine if the objectives were met.
The incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or green-certified buildings
compared to conventional buildings is minimal compared to the total costs of a building over its life
cycle. Over the 30 years or more that high-performance or green buildings are in use, the cost savings
attributable to reduced energy use and reduced water use may be significantly greater than the
incremental first costs of design and construction.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-8
OCR for page 9
The limited evidence available indicates that the majority of LEED-Silver-certified buildings
studied used significantly less energy and water than conventional buildings, although some LEED-
Silver-certified buildings did not outperform conventional buildings. Based on the evidence and
committee members’ own experience with green building certification systems, the committee believes
the most prudent course for DOD is to continue its current policy. At the same time, DOD should
establish practices to evaluate the performance of its high-performance or green buildings to ensure that
performance objectives are being met, to continuously improve performance, and to ensure that the
measures required to reduce levels of energy and water use are cost effective.
Because DOD has developed standard designs for the types of buildings it constructs most often,
using the LEED-Volume certification program may be cost effective, although as yet there is little
experience with or documented evidence about the program. DOD should consider a pilot study to
determine whether volume certifications will in fact be cost effective.
Recommended Approach 2. Retain flexibility to modify building standards and the
application of green building certification systems in ways that are appropriate to the
Department of Defense operating environment and mission.
ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 contains many mandatory provisions that have not yet been
evaluated for their cost effectiveness. The committee recommends that DOD conduct pilot studies on
specific provisions of the standard to determine their cost-effectiveness and their practicality in the DOD
operating environment before adopting ASHRAE 189.1-2011 in its entirety. As experience with the
various provisions emerges, DOD can determine which provisions of the standard are cost effective and
support DOD’s mission and incorporate those provisions into DOD guidance documents when
appropriate.
Recommended Approach 3. Put policies and resources in place to measure the actual
performance of the Department of Defense’s high-performance, green, and conventional
buildings to meet multiple objectives.
Not every individual high-performance or green building will have significant energy and water
savings even if it is certified at a LEED-Silver or equivalent rating. The committee recommends that for
all new construction and major renovations that DOD measure actual performance for 3 years or longer
after initial occupancy and use the resulting information and lessons learned to further modify its policies
if appropriate. This can be done because DOD meters all of its buildings. Data for conventional buildings
should also be gathered to establish baselines for performance measurement.
It will be necessary to continue to use building models in the design stage to support decision-
making among alternatives. Building models can be improved over time such that predicted results are
more closely aligned with actual results, as detailed in Chapter 5. As DOD’s buildings are metered, DOD
should gather data on the use of energy, water, and wastewater to establish baselines for conventional
buildings and to determine how well high-performance or green buildings are performing in comparison
to baselines and in comparison to predictions associated with design models.
DOD can continue to take a leadership role in improving the performance of all federal facilities,
as well as all U.S. buildings, by collaborating with the Department of Energy, other federal agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and others to improve national databases related to buildings and their
performance and to improve the knowledge base related to the design, construction, and operation of
high-performance facilities.
Recommended Approach 4. Use investment approaches that analyze the total cost of
ownership, a full range of benefits and costs, and uncertain future conditions as part of the
decision-making process.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-9
OCR for page 10
The analytical approach developed by the DOD consultant could potentially be used by DOD to
improve the basis for decisions about which investments will be most cost effective across its portfolio of
facilities. The proposed approach accounts for life-cycle costs, variations in geographic conditions,
climate, type of building, and local cost factors. It also helps define upper and lower ranges of uncertainty
for specific factors that are inherent with decision making about buildings that will be used for 30 years or
longer. To use such an approach effectively, however, DOD will need to ensure that the data available for
analysis are accurate and reliable.
Recommended Approach 5: Specify and fund training appropriate for facilities managers
to ensure the effective operation of high-performance buildings.
Effective use of new technologies and new processes associated with high-performance buildings
requires a workforce that is adequately trained to make decisions and implement them to maximum
benefit. Facilities managers should have the skills and training necessary to understand the interaction of
complex building systems and how to operate them effectively. Implementation of the Federal Building
Personnel Training Act of 2010 should help to ensure that DOD facilities managers are certified in the
required competencies and skills.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
S-10
