Since the dawn of time (well, OK, since 1979 when Michigan and Princeton Professors Ross and Williams developed the idea of a “house doctor”), energy efficiency enthusiasts have been convinced that retrofitting a residential building to save energy could pay for itself in fuel savings.  It’s been a rocky road since those days, when the prime concern was our dependence on unreliable Mideast oil rather than climate change, and in the energy price valley of 1985 – 2000, it was a lot harder to make the case.

But over the last ten years, subsidized programs all over the country have carried out hundreds, perhaps thousands, of retrofits.  Many were aimed at affordable housing, including the federally funded Weatherization programs, and state efforts like NYSERDA’s Assisted Multifamily Program (AMP, in which I was active) and the current Multifamily Performance Program (MPP). Others focused on coaxing the owners of unsubsidized multifamily buildings, including coops, condos, and market-rate rentals, to upgrade their building systems in the interest of greater efficiency, but always with the carrot of long-term savings. Similar efforts went on in many of the more progressive states.

All these programs were successful in installing efficiency upgrades:  insulate the roofs, add caulking and weather-stripping, switch to fluorescent lights, replace that failing boiler, and add better heating controls.  And because we had used careful analysis and detailed computer models, we were confident the savings were there.  But the fact is, we couldn’t present fuel and electric usage data from any of the early projects to prove that our analysis was accurate. As late as 2008, we had a grand total of 20 buildings from AMP for which we had verified savings, largely of satisfactory magnitude.

Of course this is a problem from a technical perspective – we would like to know we are telling the truth when we claim that savings will be forthcoming.  But there is another, much larger problem:  all the retrofits done under Weatherization or NYSERDA programs are subsidized, one way or another, so the owner could expect a much more substantial return on their own partial investment than they would receive in pure market circumstances. And still it was hard to get them to undertake the projects.  Further, what we need now is a truly massive campaign of energy retrofits, far larger than can ever be subsidized by either NYSERDA or the federal government. And owners rarely have the cash reserves to undertake energy retrofits on their own.  The only way to bring retrofit activities “to scale” is to make them an investment opportunity for lenders, by which I mean banks.

But you know bankers – dour, untrusting, “show me your cash flow” types who want proof that you will have the money to meet your monthly obligations. (We will omit discussion of the unfortunate events of the last few years except to note that now no one will lend any money without ironclad guarantees of credit-worthiness.) If we want bankers to lend money for retrofits based on the use of energy savings to repay the loan, we need tools to convince them that the savings will be forthcoming.  Until now, those tools were not in evidence.

Today, we stand a chance.  Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation and Living Cities commissioned Steven Winter Associates and HR&A Advisors to undertake a massive study of energy retrofit activities in New York City, and to formulate an underwriting approach based on their findings. The just-released report provides both a powerful case that the savings will be realized in enough instances to justify significant investment activity, and an analytic framework that will make investments even more secure.

On the technical side, they examined 231 buildings for which pre- and post-construction data was available, and developed a strong set of useful conclusions. Just a few examples: expect more substantial and reliable savings from fuel use reduction than from measures aimed at electric usage; the more fuel your building uses, the greater the potential for savings. (Before you say “duh”, this was quantified in way that that will be very useful for underwriting, as we will see.) And because buildings are complex systems, they found that while observed savings tracked projected savings in a statistical sense, there would still be cases where the savings fell short.  How can this risk be minimized, making energy efficiency retrofits an attractive investment for our dour banker?

Here is where the team developed an exceedingly clever analytic approach.  The engineers designing the retrofit will use their models to predict savings.  But from an analysis of the 231 buildings, the team already knew that on average, they could expect savings roughly equal to half of the pre-retrofit fuel use minus a substantial constant. (See the paper for the math!)  The clever approach then is to trust the engineer’s model unless it predicts savings greater than the average found for their data set, adjusted for energy use in the building being modeled. If the model predicts savings greater than the data set average, use the data set average. If the model predicts savings less than the data set average, use the model results. Then go talk to your banker. When this approach was applied to the buildings in the data set, they found that the actual energy savings substantially exceeded these adjusted predictions, a situation that should leave underwriters satisfied.

Can this work?  Will we see a dramatic increase in capital available for energy efficiency retrofits? Only time will tell, but we have made a substantial step forward.  All the buildings in New York City over 50,000 square feet will undergo energy audits, as required by Local Law 87 of 2009, and the proposed measures and their estimated savings will be there for all to see. Now, a robust way to justify financing the measures is also available.

Green codes continue to fly off the City Council’s legislative shelf like bagels on a NYC morning. We can’t even keep track and we helped draft them!

Last Wednesday, the City Council gave New York a New Year’s present by prohibiting the sale, offer for sale, or installation of carpets and carpet cushions that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of the Green Label Plus standards from the Carpet & Rug Institute. Implementing the Task Force proposal Health & Toxicity 1: Limit Harmful Emissions From Carpets, we believe this law is another first in the nation for a municipality. While many jurisdictions have standards on paints and coatings, carpets haven’t received the same attention.

But they should. For those who aren’t familiar with VOCs, they are a class of carcinogenic chemicals behind “new car smell” that cause a host of health problems ranging from respiratory ailments to major organ damage. While paints and coatings off-gas VOCs very quickly, it takes longer for carpets to release their VOCs thus increasing the likelihood that end users will be impacted. Interestingly, the vast majority of U.S. carpet manufacturers meet the Green Label Plus standards — the problem is with imported carpets. So, in one package we have a new law that improves the health of New Yorkers and also increases the competitiveness of American carpet manufacturers.

For ongoing updates on the status of the GCTF proposals, check out our Codes Status Report.

Change is a funny thing. Often when I discuss subjects like urban agriculture someone will scoff and say, “You can’t feed everyone through urban farming.”  But the hope is to reduce our dependance on, not eliminate, industrial agriculture.  (And is it churlish to point out that our current agricultural system also doesn’t feed everyone?)  When I raise the prospect of renewable energy I can expect a similar response- and have a similar answer at the ready.  The same goes for biking.  When I argue for continuing the expansion of bike lanes in NYC I am rebuffed with a lot of high dudgeon about how biking isn’t for everyone, that sometimes you need to transport kids or groceries, etc. etc.  But no one is calling for the impound of all combustion powered vehicles.  We are simply hoping to make the city a more hospitable place for cyclists and pedestrians.  I have found that the arguments that are most persuasive in this regard are the ones that explain the multiple positive impacts of these new systems.  Not just from one perspective but from many.  The folks at an organization called Healthcare Management Degree have developed a series of infographics on biking and health that are brilliant example of this.  Their graphics link the impact of driving on public health, the positive impacts of biking on individual health (average weight loss in ONE YEAR = 13 lbs.!) and, perhaps the most compelling argument in this era of tight budgets, the considerable reduction in health care costs. They might have expanded these issues to include positive community impacts like the retention of local dollars, but they are a health care company so we’ll let that slide.

Santa- all I want for Christmas is for someone to develop a similar set of graphics for my other pet causes: retrofitting existing buildings, smart growth planning, and coffee.

I’ve been ruining family gatherings with this point for years.  But that doesn’t make it any less true.  There are easy jobs to be found with a little nudge from the government.  What’s the holdup?

Bloomberg’s homepage is pretty much what you would expect from the world’s leading financial information firm: the market snapshot…a crawl of all the major indices, and of course the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ at a glance.  Below the logo, the navigation bar shows all the things relevant to the world of finance: News, Markets, Personal Finance, Sustainability…

Holy cow! “Sustainability”!? Last week, Bloomberg quietly offered up prime online real estate for this critical category. So far, it’s proving to be a fantastic source of national and international environmental news (I used it last week to track the depressing climate treaty discussions). But that’s the smaller point.

The big news here is the message Bloomberg is telling the finance industry: today’s businesses need to understand and track sustainability. One interesting question—is Bloomberg responding to a need voiced by the industry, or are they trying to make a market for it? Hopefully it’s a little of both.

After last year’s Urban Green Council Board Member elections, one of the successful candidates suggested that we take a second look at our election procedures, which felt a bit like high school. He had a point; we recruit senior, well-qualified candidates only to then ask them to compete against one another.

The Board of Directors recently voted to revise our bylaws, including changing our election procedure to match that of most other nonprofits. Rather than have some people elected by the Board and others by the members, all candidates will be part of a slate put before the members for a vote approving or disapproving the full slate. The members will help us put together this slate through a Call for Nominations we’ll issue each Fall.

We made other updates to the bylaws, which were 10 years old, making them more in line with other nonprofits:

• We removed the two-year time limit for Board officers. Now they will be able to serve for as long as they remain on the Board and their colleagues would like them to serve;
• Extended the term for the Emerging Professionals Director from two to three years, aligning this position with that of other directors;
• Added various provisions found in most nonprofit bylaws. For example, authority to enter into contracts and obtain a loan.

Most of these details are inside baseball, but they are the rules underpinning the organization. We’ve just updated them so Urban Green Council better reflects the mature organization it has grown into.

The 2012 Board Election will kick off on December 6th at the Winter Member Meeting, where members will be have the opportunity to meet all the candidates. Elections will remain open until December 31st.

We are proud to announce that Urban Green Council has issued its 1,000^th GPRO Certificate!

In the 11 months since we launched our first public class, we have trained or are in the process of training over 1,700 candidates in five different construction modules.  We wanted you to hear from our Certificate Holders directly, so we invited a student from each GPRO module to tell us how GPRO has impacted the way they work.

Loretta Tapia, GPRO: FUND

NYC Cool Roofs Site Supervisor, Community Environmental Center, New York, NY

I look at buildings differently.  I better understand the relationships between building systems and their effect on the environment. My job involves painting cool roofs and concentrates on the urban heat island effect, reducing carbon emissions and air pollution while increasing energy efficiency within the building.  We are still learning the effects of cooling roofs and how they prolong the life of vents and machinery on the roof.  I often have in depth conversations with building supers, while inspecting their roofs, which include benchmarking, lighting efficiency, weatherizing, and updating boilers and air conditioners. GPRO has given me a good foundation to build upon in understanding how important it is to do this work and continue to learn and educate others about sustainability.

Ty Stranger-Thorson, GPRO: CM

Area Manager, The Garland Company, Magnolia, TX

The actual way I work has not changed much, but the hard hat stickers and my GPRO credential listed on my LinkedIn page have both raised some questions from colleagues and clients alike regarding my GPRO certificate. This has started dialogue regarding green construction and practice, from the designers to the installers.

The more we are able to spread the word about these types of programs the easier it will be to have our buildings constructed by workers that understand and implement green building practices.

Isaiah Matos, GPRO: O&M

Assistant Resident Manager, Douglas Elliman, New York, NY

The GPRO courses changed various aspects of my life, both professionally and personally. GPRO illuminated a new way of thinking when performing at work on a daily basis. Simple things from the types of products that I purchase for the buildings to the way I manage construction and renovations have all changed. GPRO introduced me to integrated design and thinking, so making simple decisions like changing lamps may have inverse cost effects on the HVAC system, which is something I never considered before. Water conservation can reduce energy use by simply not having to heat and transport as much water as before the reduction. The integrated systems approach has changed the way I make every decision.

GPRO also introduced me to the USGBC and the LEED rating system. The influence of some of the lecturers inspired me to move further into the green building industry and pursue LEED accreditation. As of now I am a LEED Green Associate and I am studying for my LEED AP in Building Operations & Maintenance, which I hope to have before new year 2012.

Bob Hattier, GPRO: EL

NABCEP Certified PV Installer, IBEW Local 134 Chicago, Chicago, IL

GPRO addresses the disconnect that has long plagued green building.  Now with trade level certification there can be a true integrated design and construction process.  In my work I have a new understanding of the other trades’ approaches and strategies used in efficient building, and it fosters communication between us. I look forward to the day when many more are trained and green building is the norm.

Carl Gambino, GPRO: PL

Journeyman Plumber & Instructor, U.A. Local 1 NYC Plumbers Union

The day after the Fundamentals class, when I went back to my job at Tower 1 at the World Trade Center (the project is working towards LEED Gold certification), I looked around and was able to understand so much more about what was being built and why I was being asked to change the way we worked. I also noticed how other trades were contributing to the green building design.

Interested in taking a GPRO course? Our delivery partners in Upstate NY and LaGuardia Community College are both holding public sessions this winter.

Ellen is the Director of Construction Education at Urban Green Council, and runs GPRO: Green Professional Building Skills Training. GPRO is a series of courses and certificate exams that teach the people who build, renovate, and maintain buildings the principles of sustainability combined with trade-specific green construction knowledge.

Here at Urban Green Council we LOVE data!  At Greenbuild last month Harvey Bernstein, VP of Industry Insights and Alliances at McGraw-Hill Construction, released a new study on the Workforce and Green Jobs.

The upshot is that in construction, green jobs are growing at a faster rate than non-green jobs. Green training is considered valuable to contractors, trades and A/E professionals and is becoming more widespread throughout the industry.

How big is this industry anyway? Globally, construction in 2011 is projected to be a $7.2 trillion industry, representing 11% of global GDP. In 2020 this is expected to rise to $12 trillion (13.2% global GDP), mostly in emerging countries.  Projections for the next 9 years are for growth in single family homes and commercial construction but flat for institutional projects.  As we all know too well, construction and design jobs in the U.S. have been generally declining since 2008, but the good news is that green construction has been rising as a segment of the market.  This year, green jobs make up more than 1/3 of jobs in the A/E and contractor communities.

Is there a shortage of green-qualified construction workers? 69% of AEC firms expect work force shortages of qualified construction workers during the next decade.  The MH survey tried to determine the reasons why.  Major reasons cited are:

• Lack of interest in the construction industry among high school students because its perceived as not being high-tech enough
• Retirement of senior staff
• People leaving the workforce during the downturn and concern that they won’t return
• Licensed trades (MEPS) expect the worst shortages.  Contractors expect shortages in carpentry, millwork, electricians, concrete/cement workers, HVAC workers and boilermakers

What does green really mean?: The survey asked what “green” meant to each individual.  Top responses included: energy use reduction, reduction of use of natural resources, and installation of renewable energy (this response was higher for trades).

Is specialty knowledge valued? Formal training is prized by the trades and by decision makers.  80% of trades surveyed said that unions and associations were highly valued sources of training for trades.  Happily we seem to be moving towards higher levels of teamwork in the industry – the survey reported that General Contractors are looking to improve their collaboration skills and value employees who are proficient with technology and have good people management skills.  From the perspective of A/E firms, GC’s and subcontractors, certified employees help them win projects and increase competitiveness across the board.

What are the benefits of green training as seen by those in the industry?

• More job opportunities: Training is key to getting and maintaining better jobs. 30% of green job workers said they needed major training when they started, and most reported that formal education and training programs will continue to be needed. 71% of hiring decision-makers believe that having green skills increases an individual’s competitiveness

• Higher compensation:
  • 58% of the entire survey estimated a 4% higher salary for green skilled workers;
  • 38% of trade contractors said they valued green skills at 7% or higher salary;
  • 14% of AE firms said they valued green skills at a 10% or higher salary

• More job security and opportunities for advancement. Trades (carpenters, HVAC/boilermakers, electricians, concrete/cement masons and plumbers) are expected to see the greatest growth in green jobs. The survey found 15% of trade jobs today are considered green jobs, and this is expected to increase to 25% in three years.

• Outside sources of training are surpassing on-the-job training for green skills.  The number of people who responded that they can get training on the job was lower as compared to those who stated a need for outside sources of training as more specialization and technology takes effect – this response rate was similar for trades and AE professionals.

How many green jobs are out there? One oddity of this survey is how it defined “green jobs”:  Green construction or installation job in building construction involving installation of a uniquely green system or requiring different skills to meet green goals.  This definition does NOT include administrative or non-construction professions such as manufacturing or producing green products.   Hmm…and I thought I had a green job.

• Of the design professionals surveyed:  there was a steep increase in those that stated that more than 50% of their projects are green.  The rate of increase is less steep for GC’s but still climbing.
• Of the responses from the unemployed (mostly architects): 17% are seeking an exclusively green job, 60% are seeking a green job and 31% said they were not as interested in non-green jobs.

Photo credit: Linh Do

The results are in!  The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has released its annual State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, and New York has edged out arch-rival Oregon for the #3 slot.  We’re still substantially behind the two big dogs, but there was drama in the top bracket as well, as Massachusetts lapped California to become #1.

How we did it: Of course the first thing you’re wondering is how we managed to outdo Oregon and become #3.  The most likely answer might be that we grabbed free agent David Bragdon, who directed much of the greening of Portland, and brought him here to head up Mayor Bloomberg’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability.  That, however, was a city-to-city maneuver, and the Scorecard, based on statewide performance, shows no indication that it was a factor.  Rather, New York scored 1.5 points higher on “Utility and Public Benefit Fund Efficiency Programs and Policies” and Oregon beat us out by half a point on “Building Energy Code,” leaving us a net lead of 0.5 points. (We were tied in the other four categories.) This is way too close for comfort, and we’ll have to grow the advantage substantially to ensure continued dominance.

The Big Picture: To put all this in perspective, the Scorecard allocates a total of 50 possible points among six categories.  Massachusetts won with a total of 45.5; California was second with 44.0, we were third at 38.0, and Oregon is now fourth with 37.5.  Yes, we would have to span a substantial 6-point gap to compete in the top rank.

How Can New York Prevail? The areas in which we can most easily rack up additional points are the “Utility and Public Benefit Fund” area, where we got 15/20, and “Transportation,” now at 6/9.  Looking at the detailed breakdown of the first category (p. 6 if you’re reading along), we got 4.5/5 for Electricity Program Budgets, but only 2.5/5 for actual Savings.  So we spent the money, but we need meters on almost everything!  And our Gas Program Budgets were deemed weak and only rated 1/3. This stems from all the years when the PSC and NYSERDA functioned off a System Benefit Charge that was initially structured around electric efficiency, and is only now being fully extended to include gas.  We scored the maximum in the other two subcategories for “Utility and Public Benefit Fund,” so no room for improvement there.

On “Transportation,” I’m from New York City, where we probably rate a 9/9, so it really falls to those upstate SUV and pickup truck drivers to give us an assist. But 3 big points are just waiting to be picked up, if only we could extend rail and bus service.

For Building Energy Codes, we only scored 6/7, while four states got 7 and Georgia got 6.5 (?!?).  What was our problem?  Well, to get 7, your code had to exceed the 2009 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the authors deemed that we had only met those codes. Clearly, New York State should adopt the New York City energy code, which by definition exceeds the NYS code, and therefore meets the ACEEE requirements for a 7.  Alternatively, we could plead that since almost half the population of NYS is now governed by the more stringent NYC code, on average the state deserves a 7.  I’m sure a highly-paid lobbyist would be able to make this case clearly to the ACEEE  staff over an expensive lunch.   

California Strikes Back: Clearly outraged at being pushed off the high podium, the California Air Resources Board started the 2012 competition early by adopting a statewide cap and trade system for greenhouse gasses on October 20th. This was a shrewd move by California, since Massachusetts had already scored 7/7 on “State Government Initiatives” and can’t go any higher, while if California can push their 5.5 up to a 7, which this ambitious effort certainly deserves, they can tie Massachusetts on that basis alone.

Race from the Bottom: Three states – Mississippi, Wyoming, and (dead last) North Dakota – have total scores of less than 5/50.  They should consider it a growth opportunity – Alabama went from 3 to 9/50, and Nebraska from 4 to 10/50, earning both of them commendations for “most improvement.” I’m not so sure they deserve praise at this level – some state will always be ranked 51^st (DC is a state in the Scorecard), but even the lowest ranked state could have a score of 20 or 30/50 if they were trying at all.  How about “still fails to meet expectations”?

Full Disclosure: OK, the Scorecard is a little dense, I haven’t read the whole thing, and you probably won’t either.  But it is a lot of fun to dip and skim through, with great gobs of detail for the items that interest you most.  I especially recommend Chapter 3 on Building Codes – a very clear explanation of different vintages of codes from the IEC and ASHRAE90.1, the role of the DOE and ARRA, and all that confusing stuff.

An early start at Greenbuild this morning with a really fun session on the next generation of LEED.  Scot Horst of the USGBC moderated the 90 minute program which was modeled after Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest.  Seriously.  There were “players” acting scenes while Scot delivered quotes from the play.  Sounds corny, I know.  But it worked pretty well.  My guess is that he was inspired by the setting- the “room” was actually a traditional theater, with raked floor, raised stage and a hanging mezzanine.  Each session in that space today is an “Act” and each speaker a “Scene.” The individual speakers were great.   Lauren Riggs from the USGBC talked about the metric reporting they hope to provide to those that have signed on to their Building Performance Partnership.  Garvin Cardi from Christman Company talked about their new headquarters building in Lansing (more on this, below).  And Marcus Sheffer of 7group talked about creating positive feedback loops that span the divide between completion of construction and occupancy.  I chose the session to see my YR&G colleague, Lauren Yarmuth, present on building a culture within an organization.   She used her own stories and a series of photos, several of which were laugh out loud hilarious, to describe the continual journey and the constant attention needed, to build and maintain a sense of community.

On a more nuts and bolts level, Garvin Cardi from Cristman talked about the development of their headquarters in Lansing, Michigan.  The project got a lot of attention from the green building community for being “double Platinum”- for both LEED Core & Shell and Commercial Interiors (for their offices’ portion of the building.)  It was singular for being achieved in a landmarked building (it received significant historic building tax credits) and was one of the very first applications of underfloor air distribution in an existing building.  Michigan State University did an extensive study of the health and productivity of the building occupants and found solid evidence of reduced absenteeism, less asthma and generally happier employees.   Despite these solid results, when looking at their utility bills, Cardi found a problem. They were using twice as much energy as expected- even though people were generally very comfortable.  Their Energy Star score was 35.  Which is appalling.  So they spent a year commissioning their systems and found that without proper attention to the building controls they had systems like the perimeter heat in the underfloor cavity that were running full tilt, every hour of the year.  Through improvements of these systems, documented through the LEED-EBOM process they improved their Energy Star score to 81 (which is stellar) and became one of the first triple-platinum projects in the country.

Photo credit: The Christman Company and Gene Meadows

READ MORE
Greenbuild: Tuesday
Greenbuild: Benchmarking Roundtable
Greenbuild: Cradle to Cradle
Greenbuild: Finale