Last July, I posted that the Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s adAPT NYC competition was seeking proposals for “micro-units,” meaning apartments less than the minimum 400 square feet normally required by zoning. On January 22, the city revealed the winners – a team composed of Monadnock Development LLC and nARCHITECTS , and the Actors Fund Housing Development Corporation. (Rumors that the team tried to celebrate with a pizza party in a mock-up of the micro-apartment, but realized a large pizza would not fit, were greatly exaggerated.)

While not everyone would want to live in a micro-apartment (although many do), they are a great way to meet several overlapping objectives. All else being equal, a smaller residence means less construction material and waste, lower energy use, and reduced consumption of things like furniture.  Small apartments also help meet PlaNYC goals that attempt to determine how New York City can remain livable while accommodating the one million new New Yorkers expected to arrive by 2030. The competition will be a testing ground for some interesting concepts, such as a targeted zoning exception for micro-apartments and all-modular construction. And according to the city,  40 percent of the units in the building at 335 East 27^th Street will be offered at below-market rates, increasing affordability in a tight market.

You can see the winning design, which actually includes surfboard storage (I am not making that up) at a Museum of the City New York exhibition on new housing options for the city. Bring a camera to take snap a photo of the brilliant new design for micro-units! (Macro lens suggested.)

adAPT NYC’s Innovative Micro-Apartment Housing Model
Photo Credit: NYC Mayor’s Office

Photo Credit: NYC Mayor’s Office

Now in its second year, the EBie Awards from Urban Green Council, USGBC New York, are a nationwide juried competition for people working in Existing Buildings who have made great strides in improving environmental performance but whose accomplishments may otherwise go unheralded. Like the Oscars, there are multiple awards – but instead of Best Actor (or Best Key Grip) we have categories like Shine A Light On Me for the best lighting retrofit, and The Reformed Drinker for water savings. It’s sustainability in buildings, but sexy, with a glitzy awards ceremony (held at the Hard Rock Cafe Theatre in Times Square) for finalists and winners.

This year, we have added a new award for those people who work in multiple buildings: All Together Now, which recognizes the most improved portfolio across multiple sustainability categories, including water, waste management, stormwater, materials use, indoor environmental quality, and tenant engagement. The award is similar to the The All-Rounder, which is for a single building, but is designed for entrants who own, operate, or manage a group of buildings and improve their combined environmental performance. We expect that some of the biggest real improvements (not per square foot, but total water or energy savings) will come from portfolios, simply due to their size.

Working across a portfolio doesn’t mean you do different things, but it does change how you go about it. On the positive side, there’s lots of opportunity for lessons learned as conservation measures are repeated over and over (and over and over). Economies of scale come into play: once,when buying occupancy sensors for a campus-wide renovation, I found the price dropped by more than half when ordering 1,000 sensors instead of 100. Repetition can improve efficiency as project managers, purchasing agents, suppliers, and contractors develop good habits, and once-innovative processes become routine. And it’s much easier to get project approval from the right people – building occupants and top management – with a proven track record of success within the same portfolio.

Of course, it’s not always easy “scaling up.”  Despite the benefits of experience, it can seem like every situation is unique in its own way. It can be very difficult to give individual projects the attention they deserve when trying to be effective across 10, 100, or even 500 buildings. And going big too fast can have real costs if inventory is purchased and then plans change or deadlines are missed. Finally, the sheer effort required to create change in multiple buildings at once can be daunting right from the outset.

That’s why we created the EBies All Together Now portfolio award – to recognize the special opportunities and challenges that come from managing a portfolio. We’re looking forward to honoring the people making it happen across a group of buildings. If that’s you, go to ebies.org to find more details about how to apply and the definition of award categories and portfolios. The deadline for submissions is February 26, and we’ll be honoring finalists and the winners in New York City on June 19, 2013. See you there!

On January 15 I had the bright idea to attend Let There Be Daylight, an event discussing a report (of the same name, released in December) showing that at least 114 million square feet of New York City office space can easily be retrofitted with advanced daylighting controls. The presentations and discussions took place at the New York Times Building, which actually uses this technology to cut both energy use and peak electric demand.

The report makes a persuasive case: since daylight is often strongest when needed most to cut building energy peaks (summer afternoons), and prices have dropped substantially (from ~$100/ballast 10 years ago ~$30/ballast now), daylighting can be accomplished cost-effectively. NYSERDA and Con Edison incentives can shorten paybacks further, reportedly in the 4-5 year range for new construction. Wireless sensors can help overcome the obstacles of working in existing buildings, where entering the asbestos- or insulation-laden ceiling cavity is to be avoided if possible. Since New York’s central business district has more office area appropriate for daylighting than Chicago and San Francisco’s central business district areas combined, this is a major opportunity that cut could NYC peak demand by 160 megawatts.

The report contains a fantastic roadmap for future installations. By focusing on occupant comfort first, mostly by reducing glare, buildings maintain light quality and views while managing heat gain and energy savings. Best of all, the research included actual energy monitoring of existing installations to prove the savings, and polled occupants to ensure satisfaction with their daylighting systems. Since New York City buildings will have to upgrade their lighting in accordance with Local Law 88, it’s worth considering cost-effective additions to basic upgrades at the same time.

While daylighting control may be near-future technology, it still takes commitment, capital, and good design and installation. That makes it worthwhile to consider some easier and cheaper strategies that don’t include daylighting controls: implementing lighting schedules, reducing overlighting through retrofits and task lighting, and installing simple occupancy sensors. In fact, the report’s results show that daylighting controls play a smaller overall role in savings than these inexpensive, straightforward, and proven ways to greatly reduce lighting loads. Don’t wait for advanced controls to hit your block to start staring at the lights!

Many thanks to Richard Yancey of Green Light New York (which hosted the presentation and panel, co-sponsored by Urban Green) and his co-authors Stephen Selkowitz (Berkeley Labs) and Adam Hinge (Sustainable Energy Partnerships) for a great event.

At the request of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Urban Green Council has convened a special Building Resiliency Task Force of leaders in the NYC real estate community. The Task Force is taking an in-depth look at how to better prepare our buildings for future extreme weather events and infrastructure failures, and the grand kickoff was this morning, with Task Force members assembled for the first time.

Held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, over 100 Task Force members gathered to hear Speaker Quinn, Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway, and Commissioner of Buildings Robert LiMandri welcome them and describe the urgency of their work. Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Director Sergej Mahnovski described some of the challenges facing New York City infrastructure and how this may affect buildings during future extreme events.

Members also learned more about the purview and structure of the Task Force. As described by Russell Unger, Urban Green Council’s Executive Director, the Task Force will consider both direct effects of extreme weather on buildings, such as flooding or wind damage, as well as secondary effects on buildings caused by infrastructure outages like loss of electricity and water. The Task Force will be fully focused on buildings, both new construction and potential retrofits to existing structures. The Task Force will not take up the important issues of infrastructure or zoning, which are being considered simultaneously by other city groups; as the city’s overall response to Sandy and preparation for other potential risks develops, the Task Force will adapt its process to fit in harmoniously with the larger effort. The Task Force will also include a “rapid rebuilding” component, to fast-track the review of policy proposals affecting buildings currently under consideration by City agencies and the City Council.

My role was to explain the inner workings of the Task Force itself. The main technical efforts will take place in Working Groups, organized by functional area and expertise and co-chaired by designers (architects and engineers). With input from cost, code, and legal experts, the Working Groups will develop proposals based for all types of buildings. These proposals will then be considered  by Committees, organized by building type (Residential, Commercial, and Critical buildings, the latter including hospitals, senior centers, shelters, fire stations, and so forth) and co-chaired by owners. The Committees will consider what parts of the technical proposals should apply to which buildings, with the most stringency likely given to Critical buildings, then Residential, and finally Commercial buildings, with the latter perhaps leaning more towards suggested best practices rather than new requirements. Put simply, Working Groups work in their technical area of expertise to describe what could be done, and Committees work in their building type area to decide by should be done.

There is also a separate Homes Committee, since the issues facing 1-3 family structures are unique. The Task Force will also have At-Large members, with wide-ranging expertise who will consult across all proposals, and a Steering Committee made up of the co-chairs plus representatives from Urban Green Council and New York City government agencies, the Mayor’s Office, and the City Council. The Task Force is blessed with an incredible array of highly experienced experts, including owners, property managers, architects, engineers, contractors, subject matter specialists, and representatives of utilities, city agencies, code consulting, cost estimating and law.

To dive in as deeply and as quickly as possible when meetings begin in the new year, it’s important that all members of the Task Force have a common understanding of what risks the city is facing, now and in the future. We were very lucky to hear remarks from Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig, Senior Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University. Dr. Rosenzweig was able to compare current risks to those New York City may face in upcoming decades due to climate change. 100-year coastal floods may occur every 15-35 years by 2080, with flood heights increasing by 1-2 feet. Similarly, the risks of heat waves and intense rains will also increase. It was sobering to see the extent of the hazards we may encounter, but knowing the science gives the Task Force a firm base upon which to begin its work.

The Task Force will release a report in summer, 2013. Stay tuned for updates between now and then!

Germany has about 28,000 megawatts of installed solar capacity, despite its northern and somewhat cloudy location. At peak output, that’s about 14 Indian Point nuclear facilities. What has inspired so many people to install solar in Germany and other countries? Easy answer: “Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN)” Programs”, where utilities sign long-term contracts with generators to buy their solar electricity. When producers are guaranteed a good price for their output, investment quickly follows.

CLEAN programs have not been very popular in the US, maybe because they are generally known by an unappealing name: feed-in tariffs (sounds like a tax, doesn’t it?). Only about 100 megawatts of solar energy are supported this way nationwide. But that number increased by 50% in July when the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) approved a CLEAN program for up to 50 megawatts of solar power in its area. This means that it will buy solar electricity at 22 cents per kilowatt-hour, for the next 20 years.

It’s a good deal for both the generator and the utility – that price is more than most people pay on average for electricity, but less than the utility pays for peak electricity on the hottest summer days, when solar power is most useful and often plentiful. And over 20 years, that fixed price will have encouraged solar development (since investors will see good returns) but in the end will also be a great deal for the utility if prices rise above that amount – not a bad bet over a two decade timeframe.

If the price is set high enough to encourage solar investment, who’s bearing the cost? Answer: the ratepayers, who will support utility purchases of solar power through the power supply charge on their bills. The charge is estimated at about 44 cents/month for a “typical” customer, a 0.7% increase in the current power supply charge. In the long run, ratepayers may benefit from LIPA having locked in low supply pricing, since the power supply charge varies with the utility’s cost of fuel. And if distributed solar reduces peak system loads, avoiding the need to build expensive “peaker” plants, everyone wins.

At Urban Green Council’s Sepetember 1^st Wednesday program, Charles Feit of OnForce Solar called the LIPA program a “game changer”. He also added that the US is “a decade behind Europe” when it comes to solar power. However, there are still hurdles to be faced. One of them is permitting, which Charles described as his biggest headache in getting solar installed. LIPA has a great website describing the program and how to take best advantage of it – but the “fast track” process for the smallest systems still has 15 steps to follow. Large projects require a study before LIPA will approve them. And this program isn’t meant to let you sell back a few extra electrons from the system you already have on your roof. Systems have to be new, at utility voltage, and sell all generated power to LIPA – you can’t use any of it yourself.

Nevertheless, this is a big step in the right direction. CLEAN programs can increase solar generation capacity by working in tandem with programs where owners lease solar panels or simply buy the output from rooftop panels sited on their property but owned by a third party. All these mechanisms are needed because there are many situations where solar power is appropriate, but the details of each case vary widely.

Charles said that his company is doing a robust business installing solar capacity, with a low-risk, attractive rate of return. Further simplification of the permitting process is necessary to truly stoke the market, and start to catch up to that European 10-year lead. New Yorkers, you’ll have to wait for Con Ed to appeal to the state Public Service Commission before a similar program can happen in the City – but Long Islanders, the time to deploy solar is now.

On September 13, 2012, the NYC Department of Buildings published the final rule detailing compliance with Local Law 87 of 2009, which mandates energy audits and retrocommissioning in buildings over 50,000 square feet. At almost three years in the making (including a hearing and public comment earlier this year), it’s not exactly coming hot on the heels of the original legislation – but it is timely, since the first set of buildings must comply in 2013. If your block number ends in 3 (and here’s to you, Trump Building), hopefully you have already started retrocommissioning, as we recommend that you start the process at least one year before the report is due.

Trump Building at 40 Wall St.

The DOB rule fleshes out the administrative details that the law itself doesn’t include. For instance, it’s a “major” violation to fail to file a report, and carries a penalty of $3,000 for the first year (increasing to $5,000 in subsequent years). Falling behind? Owners can apply for an extension, if they’ve made a good-faith effort to comply and file an extension request by October 1 of the year in which the report is due. And we hope your filing systems are up to snuff – owners have to keep the paperwork on file for 11 years after the due date of the report.

The rule lays out in clear detail how the audits and retrocommissioning must occur. In general, these are “common sense” provisions. For instance, LL87 requires that easily reached sealants and weatherstripping be maintained in good condition, whereas the rule clarifies that asbestos-containing sealants and weatherstripping isn’t required to be removed or replaced. Additionally, the rule does narrow the law’s effect in a few ways:

• LL87 mandated ensuring all equipment is properly functioning, but the rule only requires inspection of larger equipment; for air handlers, “major” units over 5,000 cfm, and for water pumps, units over 10 hp.
• LL87 requires that all sensors be properly calibrated, but for sensors that are not part of a control sequence, the rule allows testing just 10% of them. Further testing is only required if less than 90% of the sensors tested are working properly. Similar provisions apply to light levels and steam trap surveys.
• It clarifies who is allowed to perform retrocommissioning and auditing activities, and what certifications they must maintain.

With the release of the final rule, owners should be poised to begin filing their energy audits and retrocommissioning reports next year (buildings that performed this work prior to the rule, but in accordance with the law, are deemed in compliance). Let’s get those surveys started!

Please note that this blog post is not a complete overview of the requirements and provisions of the energy audit and retrocommissioning law. For that, please see Urban Green Council’s LL87 educational offerings.

Thanks to Marianna Vaidman Stone for her assistance in reviewing the final rule.

The following was blogged live from our Fall Conference on September 18, 2012 – “Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message.” Panelist Dan Probst, Chairman of Energy and Sustainability Services at Jones Lang LaSalle, discusses the role of the green building industry in addressing global climate change.

The following was blogged live from our Fall Conference on September 18, 2012 – Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message. Panelist Doug Hocking, Principal at Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, emphasizes the importance of using data and sound architectural design to construct truly sustainable buildings.

The following was blogged live from our Fall Conference on September 18, 2012 – Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message.

Does geo-engineering have a role to play in climate mitigation? Should we be researching seeding the atmosphere with soot to try to lower global temperatures, for example?

Renowned expert James Hansen, speaking today at Urban Green’s fall conference says it might. “Unfortunately, we are going to pass a dangerous point,” and so it may become necessary.

On the other hand, he points out that “geo-engineering is not a long term solution.” Often, it focuses on limiting solar energy input in order to cool temperatures, but this does not affect other issues already in progress as a result of increased carbon levels, such as ocean acidification and melting ice caps.

Hansen was drily realistic about the chances of geo-engineering success; as he put it, “Covering up one pollutant with another may have issues.” Luckily, he was not without proposals. In his conception, “the real solution has to be to get some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.” This may include pricing carbon in some way, perhaps by a fee and dividend scheme (assuming it can be sold on the national political level).

Green buildings are at the forefront of Hansen’s conceptual solution, since they consume 40% of US energy, and much progress has been made (especially in New York!). He thinks codes are necessary “but what will really make a difference is when carbon has a price.” Hansen pointed out how much can still be gained in the building area, as well. It was a welcome spot of good news amongst the depressing news that we have already passed the point of avoiding the effects of climate change altogether.