PA/NJ codes and building performance policy presentation March 2013
•
1 like•502 views
Building energy code compliance infographic Energy Star benchmarking and disclosure laws
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to PA/NJ codes and building performance policy presentation March 2013
Similar to PA/NJ codes and building performance policy presentation March 2013 (20)
More from Cliff Majersik
More from Cliff Majersik (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
PA/NJ codes and building performance policy presentation March 2013
- 1. Codes & Disclosure Mandates: The key to market transformation? PA/NJ Sustainability Symposium March 12, 2013 Cliff Majersik Executive Director Institute for Market Transformation cliff@imt.org Twitter: @IMTCliff
- 2. Institute for Market Transformation Washington, DC Non-profit national best practices center for design, adoption, and implementation of building energy performance policies Leader on building energy code development, enforcement and compliance Policy advisor to federal, state and local governments and to industry groups U.S. hub for the Global Buildings Performance Network, DATA Alliance, a partnership with large building owners
- 3. Building Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Percentage of Total Carbon Emissions from Building Sector 75 74 70 65 62 51 38 US Chicago Dallas Minneapolis New York City Philadelphia Washington, DC Energy use in buildings costs Americans roughly $500 Billion annually And accounts for almost 10% of global carbon emissions
- 4. Link between Codes and Energy Performance Policy Energy Codes Construction Operation Renovation Operation time Energy Performance Policy
- 5. Energy Codes and the Potential Energy codes establish the energy performance requirements for new and renovated buildings. The 2012 IECC requires buildings to be 30% more energy efficient than the 2006 IECC. Source: Misuriello, H., S. Kwatra, et al. (2012). Building Energy Code Advancement through Utility Support and Engagement. Washington, DC, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
- 7. Compliance is key • Compliance with energy codes is below 50% in many places • Compliance is a low-cost solution with an incredible ROI $1 invested in compliance = $6 in energy savings
- 8. Rental Premiums for Green Commercial Buildings in the US Jackson, 2009 Pivo & Fisher, 2010 Wiley et Fuerst & Eicholtz, 2010 al., 2010 McAllister, 2011
- 9. Added Value of ENERGY STAR-Labeled Commercial Buildings in the U.S. Market Wiley et al 2010* 30% Fuerst & McAllister 2009/11 Jackson 2009 25% Pivo & Fischer 2010* AVERAGE 20% Eicholtz et al 2010* PREMIUM 15% 10% 5% 0% RENTAL PRICE SALE PRICE OCCUPANCY RATE
- 10. Jones Lang LaSalle Research Q4 2011 | Green Gauge Philadelphia MSA Non-Green v. Green Office Buildings Previous 12-month review Non-Green Green Total S.F. – 85,961,173 s.f. Projected: - 27,839,009 s.f. Projected: Overall vacancy 16.1% Projected: 12.0% Projected: YTD net absorption 674,123 s.f. Projected: 361,227 s.f. Projected: Overall vacancy for green office buildings is Under construction or renovation 0 s.f. Projected: 499,000 s.f. Projected: 4.1% less Average rent than non-green $22.67 p.s.f Projected: - $26.45 p.s.f. Projected: buildings. n Non-Green buildings = 909 properties n Green buildings = 101 properties Source: Jones Lang LaSalle 10
- 11. Commercial Building Policy Landscape WASHINGTON STATE [2009] SEATTLE [2010] BOSTON and CAMBRIDGE [policy interest] MINNEAPOLIS [2013] NEW YORK CITY [2009] CHICAGO PHILADELPHIA [2012] [policy interest] SAN FRANCISCO [2011] BOULDER WASHINGTON, DC [2008] [policy interest] CALIFORNIA [2007] AUSTIN [2008] Red Text: City adopted policy Black Text: City policy interest or consideration State adopted policy Previous or current state legislative proposal
- 12. Covered Properties New York City San Francisco Buildings 50k SF+ Buildings 10k SF+ ~16,000 buildings, 2.5 billion SF ~2,700 buildings, 205 million SF
- 13. BUILDING AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) COVERED ANNUALLY Existing policies will Philadelphia 244.5 million SF impact more than Seattle 45,000 304 million SF Washington State properties 247 million SF Austin totaling more than 113 million SF 4.3 billion SF of California floor space in major 347 billion SF real estate markets Minneapolis over the next few 110 million SF years Washington, DC 294 million SF New York City 2.5 billion SF San Francisco 205 million SF Source: IMT (February 2013)
- 14. NYC’s 2012 Benchmarking Results: Variations in Energy Use • Older buildings tend to have lower Energy Use Intensities (EUI) and higher ENERGY STAR scores than newer buildings. • Energy use varies greatly between property types, uses, and locations. • Some properties using 3-7x more energy than other buildings with similar uses. Source: New York City Local Law 84 Benchmarking Report (August 2012)
- 15. NYC’s 2012 Benchmarking Results ...if all buildings Multifamily Office operated at least the… 50th percentile - 18% reduction in energy use, 20% reduction in GHG emissions 75th percentile - 31% reduction in energy use, 33% reduction in GHG emissions Source: New York City Local Law 84 Benchmarking Report (August 2012)
- 16. Building Energy Performance Policy Building Energy Energy Code Operator Efficiency Compliance Certification Upgrades Municipal Lighting Retro- Building Upgrades commissioning Efficiency Energy Audits Sub-metering Green Leasing Benchmarking and Disclosure
- 17. Thank you! Questions? Cliff Majersik Executive Director Institute for Market Transformation cliff@imt.org Twitter: @IMTCliff
- 18. International Policy Timeline 2004: Norway, part of the European Economic Area, formally agrees to implement the 2010: EPBD Recast 2007: Brazil adopts voluntary The EPBD is recast to EPBD and building building rating regulations that certification requirements strengthen the become mandatory in 2012 energy performance 1997: Denmark requires energy requirements for all certification for homes and buildings EU Member States 1999: Australian Capital Territory requires energy certification for homes 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2002: The European Parliament adopts the 2008: China adopts a mandatory Energy Performance of energy rating program for Buildings Directive (EPBD), government buildings. requiring all EU Member 2008: Turkey States to establish adopts a mandatory energy mandatory 2010: Australia certification schemes for certification enacts mandatory homes and buildings scheme energy rating for commercial structures.
- 19. If every state COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE E Evaluations Select Commercial ComplianceVALUATIONS adopted & fully complied with the State Study Compliance Rate 2012 IECC, ID NY Ecotope. 2008. VEIC. 2012. 10-20% 36% businesses and Under 40% consumers would ME ERS. 2011. 15% met less than 25% of the code 20% fell within 25-50% range; 20% fell within 50-75% range save about $40 0-50% billion annually CA HMG. 2009. Ducts in existing buildings: 0% Duct testing: 0% on energy costs by Window replacement: 32% Cool roofs: 50% 2030. GA Towson, Bill. 2011. 80% ID, MT, OR, Ecotope. 2008. 80-90% WA (real 2008 dollars)
Editor's Notes
- This view is a little simplified, but in general, building codes touch the building at initial construction and then again during renovation. Energy Performance Policy complements traditional building codes by focusing on the operational phase of the building lifecycle.
- Significant progress has been made over time to reduce the maximum allowable energy use in buildings. National model codes (International Energy Conservation Code 2012 / ASHRAE 90.1-2007) are adopted at the state/local level. During this process, certain sections of the code can be omitted. At a national level, focusing on electric savings alone, a long-term look at the potential energy savings from building energy codes finds that electricity use can be reduced by 123 million megawatt-hours, which is 30 percent of the projected growth in electricity consumption, over the next 15 years, IF there is full compliance with the residential and commercial building energy codes. Source: April 2011 whitepaper by the Institute for Electric Efficiency.From a program cost standpoint, code compliance activities impose a low cost on ratepayers as the incremental costs of advanced efficiency construction features are borne principally by the builder or owner. A recent study by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT), in consultation with more than 30 other energy efficiency organizations, found that the achievement of 90% nationwide compliance with building energy codes could save an annual 200 tBtu by 2020 at a cost of only $1 for every $6 in energy savings (IMT 2010). able energy use in buildings.
- Stronger energy codes have transformed construction immensely over the past 30 years. (Point to insulation R values; magnify if possible.)
- Early Studies have been helpful, more research needed
- NewYork City: Properties over 50,000 SF account for ~2% of building stock by number, but 50% of floor area.
- More than 3x the floor area of every Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble and Costco store in America
- Newer buildings tend to use more energy per sqft than older ones, but this does not necessarily reflect energy efficiency per unit of economic activity.Energy use intensity:large office buildings > small office buildingslarge multifamily buildings < small multifamily buildingsBenchmarking data for commercial buildings published in Sept. 2012.Approximately 75% overall compliance, 10,000+ buildings reported.
- Methodology for calculation: the “absolute” method, analyzes how much energy would be saved if all buildings reached the current average level, and if all buildings reached the 75th percentile. The multifamily and office sectors are broken into ten percentile ranges (deciles), with the vertical axis representing median Source EUI for each decile and the horizontal axis representing the gross square footage of each decile. The area of each column is the total energy used in each decile. For each sector, the top dashed line represents the median energy use, and the lower dashed line represents the 75th percentile. This method shows that if all buildings became at least as efficient as the current average, energy consumption would be reduced by 18%; if all buildings reach the 75th percentile, energy consumption would be reduced by 31%.
- Given that codes touches buildings at only a few points in time, government agencies are assessing how they can reduce energy consumption and green house gas emissions through other methods. They are asking themselves questions like: How can markets work more effectively?How can demand for energy efficiency be increased?How can policy help reduce energy costs for businesses and consumers and create jobs?How can greenhouse gas reductions be achieved in existing buildings?The answer that is emerging is building energy performance policy. The most frequently discussed building energy performance policy is benchmarking and disclosure, but this category includes a number of related mandates and supporting programs. Think NYC’s Greener Greater Buildings Plan.
- Even though stricter energy codes are being passed, compliance rates for the energy section of codes is low, so the potential savings aren’t being realized. Compliance is the responsibility of design professionals and builders with the final authority of enforcement falling on the local code officials. Compliance rates for energy codes remain low: Building departments understaffed and underfundedNeeds depend on volatile construction volumes; difficult to rebuild capacity after construction rebounds.Uneven enforcement by code officialsMain responsibility (and priority!) is life-safety codes Code officials inadequately trainedIncreasing complexity of energy codesBut, even if codes were implemented perfectly, they would still only touch the building lifecycle during a few points: initial construction, and renovation. As cities and states increasingly grapple with how to reduce their energy use and carbon footprint, they have moved to regulating buildings throughout their lifecycle through Energy Performance Policy, which applies to the operational phase of buildings.