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

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                   OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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



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
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS U S E D BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FO R MI L I TARY CO NSTR U C T I O N A N D M A J O R R E N OVAT I O N S 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

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  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 agen- cies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27038-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-27038-3 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

OCR for page R1
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

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
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, Inc., 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 v

OCR for page R1
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 vi

OCR for page R1
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 execu- tive 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 experi- ence 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 congres- sional 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 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 vii

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE 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-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 sustain- able 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 to establish an ad hoc committee of experts to complete 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 invest- ment, 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 compre- hensive strategy for its entire portfolio of facilities that includes standards for energy-efficiency and sustainable design. The 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 applica- tion 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 five recommended approaches for DOD’s consideration as it develops its comprehensive strategy and its response to Congress.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE ix 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 the unwavering support and timely assis- tance of 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 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 sector, DOD can also take a leader- ship 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

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
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, ­ assachusetts M 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. xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 12 Context, 12 Federal Laws and Mandates, 13 Building Standards and Green Building Certification Systems, 15 Impetus for This Study and the Statement of Task, 16 Complexity of the Task, 18 The Committee’s Approach, 19 2 THE DOD OPERATING ENVIRONMENT, BUILDING STANDARDS, 22 AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS The DOD Operating Environment, 22 ASHRAE Standards, 24 Green Building Certification Systems, 27 Similarities and Differences Between the LEED and Green Globes Green Building Certification Systems, 30 3 THE COMMITTEE’S EVALUATION OF THE DOD CONSULTANT’S REPORT 32 Definition and Use of Selected Economic Performance Methods and Measures, 33 Issues Related to the Measurement of Building Performance, 35 Description of the DOD Consultant’s Analytical Approach, 36 Committee’s Evaluation of the DOD Consultant’s Analytical Approach, 46 xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv CONTENTS 4 BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE 50 OR GREEN BUILDINGS: SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW Overview of Findings from the Studies Analyzed, 52 Energy Use, 52 Water Use, 63 Operations and Maintenance Costs, 63 Indoor Environmental Quality and Worker Productivity, 64 Incremental Costs to Design and Construct High-Performance Buildings, 66 Conclusions, 68 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED APPROACHES FOR DOD’S CONSIDERATION 69 Findings, 70 Recommended Approaches for DOD’s Consideration, 74 6 REFERENCES 78 APPENDIXES A Biosketches of Committee Members 85 B Committee Meetings, Briefings, and Public Comment 89 C The DOD Consultant’s Report 91 D Literature Review 178 E Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High-Performance and Sustainable Buildings 200 F Acronyms and Abbreviations 203