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; LEED Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Volume certifications; and other ANSI-accredited standards such as Green Globes.

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:

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



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement