ALSUSTAINABILITY.NET

Number 6 Fuel Oil On The Way Out In New York City

Alan L. Englander — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:40:00 GMT

Earlier this year, New York City has taken steps towards banning the use of Number 6 Fuel Oil. The Mayor's Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability has introduced a phase-out on the burning of No. 6 plan in 2008 and later has expanded that to include No. 4 fuel oil as well. The plan is to have these fuels banned entirely by 2020. The plan is to require all new installations burn only No. 2 fuel oil, and that burners that cannot be easily repaired to convert over to No. 2 fuel oil, upon failure, between now and 2030, with a full conversion to No. 2 fuel oil by 2030, regardless of the burner condition. The law is to take effect in October, 2012, and will begin by capping the sulfur content of ANY heating oil in New York City to 1,500 parts per million, while requiring a minimum two percent biodiesel content. Buildings that now burn No. 6 would have to convert to No. 4

The reason for this is that they emit high levels of soot and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides and well as carbon dioxide when compared with No. 2 fuel oil or natural gas. These emissions, referred to as PM 2.5, are of concern as they are comprised of very small particles, which upon inhalation, penetrate deep into the lungs. It is felt strongly that this contributes to higher levels of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. No. 6 fuel oil emits as much as 15 times more soot material than that of No. 2 oil.

In New York City, one percent of the buildings create 87 percent of the oil- heat related soot. The New York City health Department has said that it has measured considerably higher readings of particulate matter as well as sulfur dioxide in areas with high levels of No. 6 and No. 4 fuel oil use. The use of cheaper No. 6 fuel oil is NOT confined to low income areas; in fact, in Manhattan, many of the buildings that burn No. 6 oil are found the wealthiest districts. It is estimated that there about 10,000 buildings in New York City that burn No. 6 or No. 4 fuel oil.

The ban is not without controversy. The main reason is increased cost in converting over for the properties that burn them. No. 6 oil is often 40 percent cheaper than No. 2. In addition, No. 6 has far higher Btu values per gallon than that of No.2 oil. In addition, to comply with the ban, burners and entire systems would need to changed out, which can, according to a number of articles posted on this topic, can cost a property as much as $300,000. (The range has been stated as between $100,000 and $200,000 in most sources that I have read) At this time, the preferred choice would really be for all buildings to convert to natural gas or at least to the newer reformulated ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil.

Now, a bit of background on No. 6 fuel oil and the other fuel oils. No. 6 fuel oil, often referred to as Bunker C or Bunker oil, is the heaviest and dirtiest of all the oils. It is is classified as a residual product that results from the refining of gasoline and distilled oils. Distillate products, which include No. 2 and No. 4 oils, result from the heating and condensing of the oils during the refining process. Some articles use the term sludge to describe and classify No. 6 fuel oil, as it is a dark-brown-black very thick tar-like substance at cooler temperatures. In fact, it is so viscous that it must be pre-heated by a water bath-like system in order for it to be pumped into a burner. As mentioned above, aside from its dirty and more difficult handling characteristics, it has appealed to building owners and operators due to its economical nature. No. 6 oil has a Btu of up to 155,000 per gallon. By contrast, No. 2 oil has around 139,000 Btu per gallon. No. 4 oil has about 150,000 Btu. per gallon, and is a blend of No. 6 and No. 2 oil. No. 4 oil is mainly used for industrial or larger buildings, where No. 2 oil -- the most common of all oils in use in the U. S., is mostly used by more modern commercial applications. Ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil is really the equal of the ultra low diesel fuel now being used in greater frequency each year.

The reason why No. 6 fuel oil is so dirty is directly related to its chemical composition. As stated above, it is the residual product of distillation of oil. It contains a broad array of components, of which include 15% paraffin, 45% naphthalene, 25% aromatic, and 15% non-hydrocarbon compounds. It also contains both cracked and non-cracked distillates, which also contain amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) It is these compounds that give off much of the toxic pollution in the emitted exhaust fumes. These compounds are the result of the using of both the cracked and un-cracked residuals in the manufacture of No. 6 oil. In addition, most blending stocks have been noted to include five percent or more of the four to six ringed condensed aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition, there is also the presence of benzene, toluene and ethyl benzene toluene (BTEX) are seen to lesser amounts. These compounds are known to be rather toxic, and have been the subject of intense regulation in the public water supply area since the mid 1980's.

In addition, No. 6 fuel oil also contributes to metal contamination in New York City's air. Nickel levels are said to be as much as nine times the national average. The City Herald in a March, 17, 2011 Internet post, stated this, and went on to state that these nickel levels in the air may lead to heart disease and premature death.

There are other intermediate fuel oils -- No. 3 and No. 5, which are a step between No. 2, 4, and No. 6. These oils are essentially just that -- a step higher in Btu and more polluting than the lower numbered No.2 fuel oil. They are not seen in use as often as No. 2, 4 or No. 6.

By contrast, No. 1 fuel oil is used almost exclusively in residential applications such as single family homes. It has a Btu output of around 135,000 per gallon. Natural gas has a Btu content of just over 100,000 per 100 cubic feet -- the standard measure of the fuel, which is used as the basis of comparison to that of fuel oil for efficiency purposes. In summary, as the numbers go up on the fuel oil classes, so does the Btu output and unfortunately, the emitted pollutants.

Adding to the controversy is the fact that while No. 6 oil and for that matter No. 4 often result in higher operating costs than compared with systems that burn No. 2 oil. This is largely due to the same polluting sulfur and nitrogen dioxides that are all the reason for the proposed ban. These products create very corrosive conditions in the burner as well as the stack flue. In fact, the stack temperature must be maintained at or greater than 225 degrees F. in order to avoid corrosive condensation formation. This factor creates an additional issue -- the reality of the incomplete utilization of the potential Btu content available. One might conclude that by not taking more of the heat out of the exhaust flue gasses, we loss a significant amount of Btu. This waste heat is now easily reclaimed with the common 92 percent-plus efficient natural gas burners that can produce waste flue exhaust gasses at temperatures well below 140 degrees, F., often far less. In fact, PVC plastic pipe is commonly used as the flue pipe material.

With regard to natural gas, fuel oil proponents are quick to point out that natural gas emits large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. My feeling here, is that we have some measure of control in the matter. First, we can choose to install 92 percent efficient or better natural gas burners that will use less gas, resulting in less emissions. In addition, these systems extract so much heat from the gas, that condensate is produced,which in turn, may reduce the emissions even further, as more of the exhaust is reduced to liquid condensate,which is NOT released into the atmosphere. In exchange, we gain more Btu from the gas, which means more "green" in our pockets for the effort. In short by using burners that are 92 percent or greater, will reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses for two reasons -- less gas will need to burned due to more Btu recovery and less exhaust products are released into the atmosphere.

With No. 6 fuel oil, as I said earlier, we also have the need to pre-heat the oil in order to burn it. This is often associated with mandatory additional professional staff to operate and maintain a No. 6 fuel oil system. In addition, there is also the issue of premature tank failure with the heavier fuel oils. Once again one can argue that over time, the added costs of operation may be able to par-laid into converting to cleaner burning fuel, when these added maintenance costs are done away with.

With all this said, it is time to take stock in the fuels that are used, and look at the overall picture, from both an environmental AND and economical point of view. In many cases it will be clear that when a system is in need of replacement or substantial renovations are planned, there will be significant savings to be had with converting to cleaner burning AND at the same time, MORE EFFICIENT HVAC systems. In my opinion, it makes much sense to look beyond the oil burner itself, and take into account the ENTIRE building system -- envelope, mechanical, plumbing lighting and HVAC and aim to REDUCE overall energy use from the start. This will ultimately reduce pollutants emitted as well as carbon footprint perhaps as much as much as the banning of No. 6 fuel oil . Once again, we have the chance to employ integrated building design and gain from the synergies between efforts to achieve an even more higher performing building that is more environmentally responsible. This building will also be far more cost effective in its operation, with superior return on investment.

I do NOT mean to say that No.6 fuel oil must be not phased out; it must be phased out as planned. It is just too dirty to be allowed to be used in perpetuity.

New Advances In Glazing Materials -- Phase-Changing Heat-Storing Thermal Mass Capability Is Now Reality

Alan L. Englander — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:47:00 GMT

Environmental Building News reported on a revolutionary development in glazing materials in its August 2010 edition. The product, GlassX , is a quadruple (or at least double) glazed system developed in Europe that incorporates a phase-changing material that is capable of storing heat. (NOTE: When accessing the GlassX website, it will NOT initially be in English; click on EN at the top of the page.) In North America, GlassX is distributed through Greenlight Glass Systems in Vancouver.

In its full version, the GlassX system is quadruple glazing unit that has three separate insulating glazing units to create an assembly about three inches thick, with a weight of almost 20 pounds (95 KG/square meter)

The outermost section of the system is filled with a low conductive gas such as Krypton that has a prismatic filter suspended into it. This prismatic filter is designed to reject the higher angle light (greater than 40 degrees -- Summer sunlight) but allow lower angle winter sunlight (less than 35 degrees) to pass through. Thus, we now have passive solar heating with an automatic summer control that serves the duty of a window equipped with automated shades or louvers incorporated into a single glazing unit.

Obviously, this form of the system is best suited for south-facing sections of the building, as we can now maximize the winter solar gain, while sharply curtailing the unwanted summer heat gain. This is aided by an inner facing layer of low-emissivity (low-e) coated cavity to retard heat transfer in a similar manner to that of standard double glazed systems.

The real crowning glory in this system is the innermost layer that faces the interior of the building space. This is an additional cavity filled with polycarbonate channels that contain a salt hydrate phase changing material (PCM). This material will change from a solid to liquid over a short range of temperature. This is known as Phase Change. In this application, GlassX will change from solid (crystal) to liquid from 79 degrees F. to 86 degrees. This property allows for the heat storage and release to take place at the room-temperature range. It is the phase change that allows for the storage and release of heat. The ice to water or water to steam is the best example of this. In order to get the phase change, a considerable amount of energy far and beyond that normally needed is required to get the temperature to raise (or lower) that one degree to the phase change. Once this energy has been applied, the phase will change, and with it, substantial energy storage or release is seen. For example, water can continue to absorb a lot energy while at the boiling point (liquid to steam / gas phase) as well as at the freezing point (ice -- solid phase)

The salt-hydrate phase-change material (PCM) according to the article is capable of storing as much heat as nine inches (240 mm) of concrete when an 18 degree F (10 degree C) difference is applied) What really makes this PCM product useful in sustainable building design is the ability of it to release this stored heat gradually over a 20 hour period at a rate of between 16 and 32 BTU per square foot (50-100 Wh / M).

The thermal insulation performance is also impressive, as when krypton gas is used in the outer facing section, the U-value is as low as 0.07. In addition, as long as sunlight is not blocked by the prismatic layer, the light transmission is a high as 45 percent during the liquid phase of the PCM. When the PCM is crystallized, the light transmission will drop to 28 percent.

Perhaps one of the first questions asked would be how can we tolerate only 28 percent light transmission? The answer can be VERY simple: If the budget allows (more on this later) the designer or architect can design the GlassZ system to be a good part of the exterior wall (envelope) of the building. In doing this, the interior wall can either be light transmitting if desired, or light blocking, covered with heat-transmitting material. Regular clear-glazed low-e krypton (or argon) filled windows (often venting) are then placed at appropriate locations for daylight / view / ventilation. The main idea here is to allow GlassX to form the building envelope and at the same time serve as a thermal mass unit.

Durability is the primary concern in any new technology, and with GlassX, this has been addressed by the inventor, Dietrch Schwartz. Dietrch Schwartz guarantees the PCM to last 100 years based on 50 to 100 phase change cycles per year. In addition, there are no moving parts to wear out.

As mentioned at the outset, the full featured GlassX system is best used on a south (or perhaps west) exposure, several other versions (also at lower cost) are available. These include a quadruple system with PCM but no prismatic filter for non-southern exposures, a triple glazed system with prismatic filter and gas filled insulating glass unit IGU and PCM IGU, as well as a dual-glazed unit containg only the PCM.

At the present, the GlassX unit is available in heights up to 110 inches (280 cm) and a maximum width of 59 inches (150 inches) As of last summer, GlassX was only manufactured at two locations -- one in Austria, and the second in Germany. As of mid-2010 there were no installations in North America, but several were in the works.

PCM technology is NOT for every building. It is VERY important to study the ENTIRE building system. Factors to consider are location, orientation and perhaps most importantly COST. GlassX IS RATHER EXPENSIVE at $60 to $90 per square foot ($560 - $970 per square meter) This said, if the the analysis and first cost budget allows, the superior performance may very well justify its use, as it could translate into a rapid payback on investment.

In short, GlassX is an innovation well worthy of consideration by all design teams desiring to produce a sustainable environmentally friendly cost effective building.

More on Net-Zero Buildings

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:50:00 GMT

Earlier in 2009, I wrote on the topic of Net-Zero Energy buildings. During this pas year, there has been much discussion at both the print and online media as well as personal encounters at meetings and seminars regarding this effort. As I discussed last year, the term net zero is used to describe a building in terms of being able to, either through the use of Renewable Energy, or a combination of renewable energy and conservation efforts, use no more energy from the electric grid or any other energy source than it is able to generate on-site. As such, a net energy building WILL almost always purchase energy from outside sources, use it during certain time frames and then regenerate new energy on site to "pay back" what it has purchased.

In most cases, if net-zero energy is achieved, it will almost always be done in the context of a single story building with plenty of roof exposure to the sun. Solar Voltaic Panels are the most common renewable energy source used in this effort, as they are the easiest to incorporate into a building and site plan design. Wind Energy is also possible, but the need for large open spaces as well as land-use and zoning prohibitions and the proximity to other neighboring sites has been a limiting factor in the use of this excellent energy source in many cases. HOWEVER, a U. S. DOE - Pacific Northwest National Lab study in last year, quoted in the August, 2010 issue of Environmental Building News (page11) shows that in five different scenarios when Chicago (a high wind area) and Phoenix ( a high sun area) wind energy actually did better in Phoenix. In addition, achieving net-zero can be VERY costly and is NOT always possible in many buildings due to energy needs per square foot far exceeding the renewable energy generation capability in the space available.

The paragraph above states the major issues working against the goal of net-zero energy buildings in so many cases. The fact that we need such a large roof area to total interior building area makes achieving this goal more and more difficult as the number of stories of the building increase. In fact, an article written in the August, 2010 issue of Environmental Building News quotes a National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) study done as early as 2007. At that time, it was found that with a one-story building could reasonable achieve net-zero 88% of the time, while at two floors, it dropped to 48%. By the time we get to four floors, it was found that only three percent of the buildings were capable of achieving net zero.

In addition, site issues can also preclude the use of solar energy in areas where the building is shaded by significant trees, or cannot be oriented to face the best exposure to the sun on the given lot dimensions. In the case of trees, it is often far better from an environmental point of view NOT to clear the trees, as to do so, creates the unwanted effects of increased storm water and heat island effect.

This gives reason to suspect that a net zero building can have unwanted environmental side effects, the worst being the contribution of Urban Sprawl. Urban sprawl results when large amounts of land are cleared and built up with buildings often containing just a one or perhaps two stories. In this case, unlike major cities such as New York, the utilization density per square foot of space becomes so small, that the amount of energy saved by the net zero building could be offset by the negative impacts on the loss of open space and the attendant issues of storm water management and traffic. Speaking of traffic, and the need to build more roads and parking facilities, we have another issue -- that of additional energy consumption on the part of single occupancy vehicles needing to commute to a remote site where public transportation is not readily available. While we all realize that it is NOT possible or even advisable to ban all single occupancy vehicle use, its effect on a net zero energy building could offset the energy savings, as well as generate more environmental issues. Version 2 of the Living Building Challenge takes on this issue, by advocating attempting to design to the creation of car-free living. The Living Building Challenge is yet another sustainable building and design rating system, and is more stringent than that of LEED.

Given these concerns, a growing school of thought now encourages designers to take these potential negative side effects into account. One alternative is to take net zero to a broader, and larger level -- Net-Zero Neighborhoods or Communities. In this effort, rather than trying to beat ourselves to death in making each and every building totally net-zero, we will take the entire surrounding area, or neighborhood into account and aim for net-zero energy on an overall basis. This effort has many advantage, but also disadvantages. One of the main advantages is cost savings per building, as each building can pursue the most cost-efficient project in its design as space and orientation permits. The second advantage deals with the ability of being able to pool efforts by having buildings that are more able in terms of orientation to the sun (or perhaps amenable to wind power) build these efforts into the total plan, while other buildings in the community that are not able to do so, would contribute other environmentally sustaining efforts such as storm water as well as waste-water management, and pocket parks.

Another possible energy efficient design tool made available by community based efforts is the use of District Energy Systems. The idea of district energy systems is not new; many colleges, universities and multiple building campuses have employed this design for decades. In this application, a centralized heating and/or cooling plant is used. This plant is then designed to operate in stages as the need of the total campus dictates. In such a manner, during mild periods, only perhaps 30% of the total equipment will be used, allowing the remainder to be taken off-line. This 30% is now operating at peak efficiency, with automatic savings being seen. Short-cycling of compressors is minimized or eliminated, and full AFUE is seen in combustible heating equipment. Another clear advantage can be less initial building costs, as less total capacity is needed, as each building has access to the total capacity of the central plant, eliminating the need for each and every building to design for unusually large and rarely seen load capacity. This means smaller total equipment size for the overall plant. Cornell University in Ithica, New York did this with their cooling plant. I wrote on this in an entry last year.

One main disadvantage of the community or neighborhood based attempt at net-zero is financing. A second issue is that of ownership of the entire set of systems involved. Who will actually pay for the full build-out of the system? Each stake-holder is now sharing a central plant that they do not have true and full ownership of. Also, we see problems when just one building of perhaps several dozen is completed, and ready for occupancy well before the central plant can be brought on line. In this case, a temporary plant may need to be built during this time, creating the effect of consuming more raw materials and thus, not being as green or carbon-footprint friendly as intended.

I do NOT mean to say that we should abandon our quest for net-zero. Rather, we need to focus our design energies into determining what is REALLY best for the individual project that we are involved in. As net-zero can be VERY difficult and often cost-prohibitive to achieve, it may be best to concentrate our efforts in these case on doing more with an inclusive overall design that includes building massing, envelope, lighting, HVAC systems, water efficiency, open space, and storm-water management where applicable for the individual site. In other words, we would be best to do what we can do best for each site, and NOT try to conquer the impossible. It is far better to do something that results in substantial overall savings in one or more areas than not achieve a satisfactory level in the total combined project. That said, net-zero should and must be the initial design goal; this serves to challenge the design team to "put their thinking caps on" and not leave any opportunities available unused.

Light Imprints -- Integrating Sustainability and Community Design

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:27:00 GMT

This entry will detail the second of the two webinars that I participated in during mid July. In this webinar, we dealt with the topics raised in Thomas E. Low's new book entitled: "Light Imprint Handbook -- Integrating Sustainability and Community Design". This does NOT mean that we dealt with street or exterior lighting issues, but rather the broad area of community planning to create a more sustainable community via the wise use of planning from the aspects of storm water management, street and park placement, proper use of open space and its preservation, along with other items.

To accomplish these goals we need to change our mindsets about how we go about community planning. For example, we MUST attempt to create a gradual and continual transition from rural to city environment via the use of green ways that weave this together in a coordinated fashion. This avoid the sharp contrast between rural open space and dense urban settings.

One of the first tools used is to deal with storm water management in a more natural and aesthetic manner by NOT using Pipe and Pit methods in which a series of drainage pipes leads to a retention pond or other storage system. Rather we will use a series of vegetative swails or a series of rain gardens to keep the storm water on the original property and have it recharge the aquifer right there. In doing this, we create a natural setting that emulates nature, rather than place a large artificial open retention pond. This is known as Low Impact Best Management Practice.

Open space is further preserved by not cutting down and replacing all the vegetation. Rather, we will aim to keep as much of the tree and plant life on the site and work around them when designing a site or subdivision plan.

The term Smart Code enters into the picture, as we need to further coordinate this effort via the updating of planning and land-use codes to move this effort along. Environmental corporate responsibility is needed as well; all too often, office parks have in the past clear-cut land and over-paved the original open space.

The need to create a walkable and linked community is a MAJOR priority here. We aim to NEVER cut a community into two or more separate unconnected sections by placing a drainage channel or other non-walkable structure between them. Corner cafes and urban interior block parking lots are also used.

The City of Habersham, South Carolina was profiled in their highly successful efforts here. It was shown how low impact parking lots for the management of storm water runoff was used. In this effort, as described above, they used existing trees and landscape elements in the drainage efforts rather than replace them.

Green sprawl v.s Urban Green deals with concept of creating low impact rain gardens for drainage, and weaving in open space with developed space. This contrasts with the traditional approach in which large "McMansion" style homes are built on small lots with very shallow setbacks.

Green ways that function as both parks and transportation are also a valuable tool. Charlotte, North Carolina has used them with great success in their street car system. Intra-modal transportation also plays a role here in that several modes of transportation -- pedestrian, bicycle, rail, bus and car can be accessed in a seamless fashion from a low-impact center.

As said earlier, the need to incorporate nature into the community is paramount. This is best done by gradually transitioning from a dense wooded or open rural landscape into an urban community. This also has the benefit of creating a better sense of community life and well-being.

Cost is a big issue here; in light of the current economic situation facing most municipalities, we need to be aware of this, and be ready to use alternative sustainable designs that are less costly.

A concept known as Light Impact Overlay is used to plan for really sustainable coordinated communities. Here, we will see extensive use of pocket parks and less "pipe to to pit" drainage systems. When properly done, this can actually save 30% per lot in development costs.

In summary, if a well planned transition from rural to urban development is undertaken, we will have a seamless, fully interconnected and highly functional community in which its residents can reside in, work and play with very minimal impact on the environment.

Sustainable Streets

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:10:00 GMT

In mid July, I participated in two webinars that dealt with the sustainable design aspects of neighborhoods. Here, I will report on the first of them -- Technologies for Sustainable Streets. This was hosted by Ron Blank and Associates, and featured Landon Boone and Phil Sheldon.

Five areas make up the areas needed to be addressed when one designs for sustainable streets:

Environmentally Responsible Design
Visually appealing and sense of community
Durable and practical over life cycle of the pavement
Safety
Provide for Multiple Transport Modes

Our design objectives include: Increased bicycle use, mass transit, more pedestrian use, improved aesthetics and reducing Heat Island Effect.

When choosing a paving material we need to consider how well the paving product can be recycled when it reaches the end of its useful life. Roads and side walks do NOT last forever. It may appear as a surprise that despite its apparent durability and dense nature, concrete is NOT a good candidate for recycling. Asphalt, on the other hand, is very easily recycled by simply milling it off the road surface and mixing it with new asphalt and bituminous material. In addition, concrete has a far higher carbon foot print than that of asphalt. In fact, asphalt has less than 60% of the carbon footprint of concrete, and is thus considered to be the greener of the two pavement choices.

Heat Island Effect is dramatically evident with pavement surfaces. In Vancouver, a study showed that the temperature of a developed paved area was 5 to 8 degrees hotter than an unpaved area nearby. This is where the concept of Solar Reflective Index (SRI) come in to play. A white surface has a SRI of 100, which means that it reflects 100 percent of the heat energy and absorbs none, while a total black surface is just the opposite. LEED requires that the SRI for paved surfaces be 29 or greater.

Just because dark surfaces are often preferred and even required in the design does not mean that we cannot get an SRI value greater than 29. While fresh asphalt has an SRI of only 5, and will have an average temperature of 123 degrees, and aged asphalt has an SRI of 10 with a temperature of 115 degrees, we can use proteolytic asphalt or coatings to get the SRI value up to 80 with an average temperature of less than 90. This really brings down the Heat Island Effect FAST. Even some of the dark colored asphalts have SRI values of over 30 when made with the proteolytic method. Dark surfaces are easier on the eyes, as they produce less glare. Thus, we can still use dark colors for pavement and see a temperature reduction of 15 degrees.

Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) emissions also must be considered when specifying the paving material. California, a leader in environmental design, requires this value to be 100 or less. By using Advanced Acrylic coatings, we can get a VOC value of 21.

LEED for Neighborhood Development emphasizes three design areas: Smart location and linkage, Neighborhood Pattern and Design, and Green Construction and Design.

In the area of Smart Location, we take into account just how the location can utilize bicycle storage and network, as well as pedestrian access to all areas. These two items help to significantly reduce Vehicular Miles Traveled. There is also a Green Rating System for Roads that is similar to LEED in concept. Community outreach, tree-lined streets and Regional Priorities are emphasized in this system.

Life and Safety as well as Pedestrian Oriented Streets are a major goal in this effort. It is of interest that speed bumps do NOT work well to reduce traffic speed; people often just speed up after each bump. it has been found that reducing lane width has a far better effect. Also of value are traffic circles.

New York City, another leader in sustainable design and building codes, has done much in this area. They have reclaimed much space from vehicular traffic and provided it for pedestrian use on several of their main thoroughfares. These include Times Square, 57 and 34 Streets, as well as Broadway. In these reclaimed areas, one can now see a mall-like effect, with pedestrian walks as well as seating, which creates a park-like effect, while at the same time improves community linkage and pedestrian safety. In the paved areas, only low VOC pavement was used, and different colors for coatings were employed to make for easy and fast identification of these specific use locations. So far, the efforts have paid off with a 50% reduction in traffic accidents.

In the area of Neighborhood Identity, one can use Inlaid Durable Design Materials to create a means of identity and at the same time, unify a neighborhood. Cross walks can bear a logo or other means of specific community appeal.

Regarding the coatings that I mentioned above, they can last for two to 10 years, depending on traffic load, and road salt does NOT degrade them. (Snow plowing can ruin them, however.) Thus, one needs to take into account the traffic load VERY CAREFULLY when considering this type of pavement specification.

New York City Green Codes Session I

Alan L. Englander — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:12:00 GMT

On Tuesday, June 28, the Urban Green Council presented its first in a series of five sessions on the status and progress of New York City's effort to create a full Green Building Code. This series is devoted to passing on information gathered by the New York City Green Codes Task Force.

In this first session, it was planned to have City Council Speaker Christine Quinn give a keynote address summarizing the Task Force progress to date. Then, City Council Member Eric Martin Dilan, as well as Dan Nall from WSP Flack + Kurtz join with Urban Green Council Executive Director Russell Unger and Charlotte Matthews of Related Companies were to present a further panel discussion. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing budget crisis, only Russell Unger and Charlotte Matthews were present. However, they were rather successful in bringing us up to date on the Task Force history and its progress to date.

Readers of my blog will remember in January of this year, NYC passed the most sweeping energy code to date in the nation. I attended five separate meetings on this topic, and have blog entries on each. As of July 1, this has become law.

The Green Codes Task force takes this effort much further, in that it will include a re-writing of the entire set of building codes that NYC will ultimately follow. All areas will be included; not just energy. We will see plumbing, water efficiency, materials and resources, ventilation -- indoor environmental quality, as well as other green and sustainable issues being incorporated. This will evolve into what I believe will be the most comprehensive and strict green building code in the nation.

As I have noted, NYC plans by the year 2025 to aim for the requirement that all new and renovated buildings meet Net Zero Energy Building criteria. As I have said in earlier entries, this will mean that the building will need to through both conservation and the use of on-site renewable energy sources be totally neutral in its energy usage needs. By this, we mean that the building can still purchase energy from the grid, BUT it must, at some time during a set period of time generate enough energy through renewable sources, such as solar or wind, to offset this purchase, by sending the same amount back to the Power Grid that it purchased. Of course conservation through both envelope, lighting and HVAC efficient equipment will play a role here in reducing the total energy needed, we will also now see water efficiency through stricter plumbing fixture requirements. Toilets that use less than 1.6 gallons per flush and waterless urinals have been proposed to be part of the new Green Code.

We MUST note that none of these additional items have come without protest from various city agencies and trade unions. One example is the use of fire retardant suppressants, such as foam, and fabric additives. The NYC Fire Department will need to sign off on changing the current requirements, which mandate the use of high content VOC agents that have been found to contribute to respiratory and other health issues. Another example is the use of waterless urinals. The plumbing union has expressed concerns about this. Thus, there are MANY hurdles to overcome in getting a comprehensive green building code on the books in NYC.

As we know, codes exists due to need. It is the thinking behind these needs and the means of implementation that make them happen. The Task Force was a result of the NYC Mayor's Office and the NYC Council working with the Urban Green Council to create such agency. It is now know as the NYC Green Codes Task Force.

The NYC Green Task Force went through several ways to start the process:

Mandate LEED
Adapt ASHRAE Standard 189.1
Made in NYC: The Green Codes Task Force.

LEED was strongly considered, but was found to be difficult to enforce, as it was not a scalable approach. ASHRAE Standard 189.1 was not yet ready for enforcement at the time the Task Force was working on this effort. (At this time, it is now is ready for enforcement in any new code.) Thus, the Task Force Chose to use the latter approach -- Made in NYC: The Green Codes Task Force creation of a comprehensive set of green building codes from the ground up. Many of these will mirror those of LEED, and perhaps go beyond.

All told at this time, 111 recommendations for green building requirements have been placed on the table for consideration, and there have been numerous breakdowns and consolidations of these. One example was to require buildings to make stairwells available for passage at all times. The Department of Health liked this, as it would promote physical fitness, while at the same time, reduce elevator related energy use. The idea was tabled, as it was considered to be too risky if someone were to fall in the stairwell and not immediately be found.

At the present, the Task Force is working with the areas of water and lighting efficiency. One major issue has been the lack of clarity on the codes; interpretation has been the major issue now and in the past. In fact, I, Myself raised the question as to just when will the new code actually kick in during a construction project. Is it based on the percentage disturbed of the total square feet, total cost, or just the mere replacement of a plumbing fixture. The answer is, depending on the area of the building code, all of the above. With plumbing, for example, if just one fixture or roughing is changed or moved, this area MUST be brought up to current code. If an area is NOT touched, it will NOT be required to meet the new code in this case.

Another area of concern deals with ventilation. As we aim to make to make building envelopes more airtight, will we now need to address this concern at the residential level, such as apartments. We have dealt with this at the commercial level, but will now need to strongly consider the requirement of make-up air and energy recovery ventilators. I have learned that Canada has required this for a number of years, as their winters are much more severe in regard to heating degree days, that energy tight building envelopes are a must. But. with energy tight building envelopes comes the need for make-up ventilation devices in order to maintain proper indoor environmental quality. Canada has such a requirement for such devices. In fact, in my cousin's Lake Placid, NY town house (built in 2007), which is located in a climate similar to that of Canada, such equipment is already in place. It should be noted that much of Lake Placid, which has perhaps the cheapest electric rates in the nation, (4.87 cents per kilowatt hour during the winter) heats with resistive electric heat. The current New York State Energy Code currently requires increased levels of building envelope insulation and air-tightness above and beyond that of non-electrically heated homes. As such, his town house has a heat recovery ventilation system in place

The main thrust of the effort of the Task Force will be to deal with renovations -- NOT to require existing building that are NOT undergoing changes to meet the new green codes. This is based on the idea that there is CONSTANT CHURNING OF TENANTS AND BUILDING RENOVATIONS TAKING PLACE ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

It is expected that the process of the Task Force will take two years; thus by the summer of 2012, we should see what at the time of this writing, the nation's most stringent Green Building Code.

ASHRAE STANDARD 189.1 -- IT'S NOW REALITY!

Alan L. Englander — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:01:00 GMT

At the Winter ASHRAE Meeting, held this past January, the first Green Standard for the design of High-Performance Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings was approved. Readers of my blog may remember that I wrote on this Standard early in 2009, when it was still in the development and review phase.

What sets this apart from rating systems, such as LEED, is that it is a code-intended standard. This means that it can be used as the basis for municipal codes, as it is ANSI sanctioned. Thus, unlike the LEED rating system, which is a voluntary rating system, this can be incorporated into mandatory building codes in the same manner as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been with energy codes throughout the USA. This is due to the fact that it includes mandatory and prescriptive performance criteria

ASHRAE Standard 189.1 covers ALL areas of sustainable building design and operations, and in many areas, mirrors the LEED rating system. This is what sets this apart from any other ASHRAE Standard, which up until now have covered only issues related to energy use, heating, cooling, ventilation and refrigeration operations and safety issues. Thus, ASHRAE has now introduced a Standard that covers such areas as sustainable sites (land use) water efficiency, light pollution issues, the building's impact on the atmosphere as well as indoor environmental quality. Thus, a design team will need to take into account the building's source contaminant and emissions.

This Standard was a four year effort that involved not just teams from ASHRAE, but USGBC and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), as well as the public. Three review period were conducted during this effort, and over 2500 comments were received.

One item in which this Standard differs from the past, is that for the first time, future provisions for on-site renewable energy will be required, unless the building is located in a poor incident solar radiation area. Another exemption is granted for a period of up to ten years, if 70 kWh / Square-foot of green power is purchased. The prescriptive requirement here will be 6 kBtu / square-foot. If one chooses to use the performance path, increased energy efficiency can substitute for renewable energy.

Standard 189.1 is NOT intended to replace Standard 90.1; rather it is meant to build on this standard, which is the current basis of all energy codes in use in the USA today.

Standard 189.1 will result in a solid increase in energy savings. These will vary from region to region, but on the average, the savings will be 30% over that of Standard 90.1.

Standard 189.1 is intended to blend with and compliment the LEED rating system and Energy Star; in fact it was these systems that served as the basis for this Standard. As said above, we now have a ANSI model code language that can be incorporated into new green building codes. It is intended to compliment green rating systems, not to compete or eliminate them, but rather to set a new level of mandatory minimum standard that a building must meet in terms of sustainability. At the present, efforts are underway to educate model code organizations, as they are looking for guidance in just how to incorporate green standards into their codes at all levels.

While the emphasis of this entry has focused on mandatory codes, Standard 189.1 can also serve as a reference for jurisdictions seeking to provide a guidance reference for green designations or voluntary programs in place of actual mandatory requirements. Also, a jurisdiction may choose to modify or regionalize the requirements. However, if a jurisdiction wants to adapt a provision that is more stringent than the requirements found in the Federal Register, they must first request a waiver from the U. S. Department of Energy. This issue of Federal Preemption was a contentious issue during the review process. The creation of various paths to compliance dealt with these issues.

As noted above, we now see exterior lighting included in Standard 189.1. The main aim here is to deal with issues of back-lighting, up-lighting and glare. Again, we saw much contention with these provisions.

Standard 198.1 will be under continuous review; it will be altered as needs arise at any time. In addition, daylight provisions will be reviewed to ensure that they mesh with Standard 90.1. A user's manual will be published sometime this summer. For further information, refer to: www.ashrae.org/greenstandard

Optimizing Energy Use in Sustainable Corporate Interiors

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:37:00 GMT

The New York Urban Green Council held their monthly High Performance Green Building Salon this past Thursday, with topic being optimization of energy use in sustainable corporate interiors.

The presenters were:

Pat Sapinsley, AIA LEED AP, senior Associate, Good Energies,

Steven South, LEED AP BD+C, Project Designer, Perkins and Will
Shoshanna Segal, LC, IESNA, IALD, LEED AP, HLB Lighting Design

This presentation detailed the cooperative efforts of a team led by Good Energies, which is part of the COFRA organization. The COFRA organization is a venture capital company that invests in technologies and applications that show sincere promise in the area of sustainability, which includes renewable energy enterprises such as solar and wind. COFRA also has investments in designers and manufactures of energy use automation and control systems.

A major one of their investments has been Sage Electochromatics, on which I have a blog entry in late 2008 or very early 2009. Sage has perfected a superior gazing system that by the use of electronic changes to the glass tinting dramatically reduces solar gain when it not wanted.

The Sage product that was described in ASTM tested, and lets in heat when needed, while providing for a range of transmissible light as high a 62% down to as little as 3%. This has the effect of reducing and controlling glare, a major issue in occupant comfort, as well as a LEED credit factor in the area of Indoor environmental quality. This glazing system can be programmed to respond to the solar patters that effect the particular building it is used in. The glazing system does need some energy to perform its electro chromatic changes, as well as to retain them, when in operation. To initiate the change, .28 watts per square foot (S. F.) are needed; while to retain the change, only .10 watts per S. F. are needed. It is expected that by 2011, Sage will have this glazing system in sizes up to 60 inches by 120 inches. In terms of the ASTM tests, it has performed flawlessly at a range of 30 years with 90 cycles per day FAR MORE than any building would EVER need during its life cycle expectancy. Only one or two changes per day would be needed in reality. The air space is one-half inch with argon gas fill. The only drawback is that in areas that now require anti-ballistic glazing coatings in the post 9/11 era, the system cannot be used at the present.

The second area covered by the team was energy use controls. COFRA / Good Energies has invested in the area of Smart Grid and Meter controls. This application has been used in the residential area to alert homeowners to their energy usage and allow them to make wiser choices, as well a providing for remote control via an i-Pod like device.

A second area of investment has been the Tendril Product Interface. This system allows the utility to, upon customer enrollment, to communicate with the user's energy system main and actually dump loads during critical periods. In exchange, the customer gets a rebate from the utility. This system works via broadband communications, and can use thermostats, computers, outlets, or even mobile devices to execute the load dumping.

Ice Energy is another one of COFRA / Good Energies investments. I also have a blog entry on this dating back to July, 2009. This allows for cooling to be stored in the form of ice at night, during lower outdoor ambient temperatures, and lower periods of electrical demand. This allows a building to use only a fan to cool during the peak usage daytime periods, which in turn, shifts loads away from the critical peak periods. While not really intended to save energy, it does provide some savings, in that the ice creation is done at night, when the ambient temperatures are lower, meaning more BTU"s per kilowatt hour are obtained. This load shifting eases the peak demand, which in turn, has two benefits: less likely brownouts, and less of a need for new power plants to built. Also, it probably reduces smog, as it is during the sunlight hours that most smog is created when power plants are running, especially the dirty coal-fired ones.

COFRA / Good energies has all the above mentioned technologies in their projects, and also emphasizes daylight harvesting, perimeter office layout design, light sensors, re-directing up to 82% of construction waste from landfills, as well as 42% of materials obtained from locally manufactured sources and 98% FSC certified wood.

At this time, COFRA / Good Energies recognizes the value of LED lighting, but does not feel that the efficacy of them is strong enough for wide spread application; thus they have concentrated on the use of linear fluorescent, combined with light colored floors and walls, as well as the use of perimeter office layout with interior glazed partitions for daylight. Their experience has shown that daylight harvesting does NOT always guarantee a LEED daylight and view credit; one of their projects that they showed us, while seemingly very well lit was denied the credit, as it could NOT meet the strict 75% area coverage as prescribed by LEED.

Regarding the use of sensors, the placement at North, South, East, and West in the New York City area is NOT always adequate, as the factor of shadows from adjacent buildings is a major player here.

Lastly, but NOT LEAST was the mention of curtailable Ballasts. These ballasts, which control lighting fixtures, can communicate with the utility to respond to demand reduction needs from the utility. COFRA / Good Energies has invested in LUM Energy that produces such a product. Phillips also has a product on the market.

COFRA's / Good Energies projects come in with a .75 watt per S. F. power consumption, which is 24% BELOW present code. While this is very good, one member of the audience told me after the presentation, that this is now standard practice for sustainable design. In addition, we must also keep in mind ASHRAE Standard 189.1, the high performance building standard that aims for a 30% reduction from that of their Standard 90.1, which is the basis for almost all national and local codes.

Green and Sustainability -- an Olympic Win

Alan L. Englander — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:51:00 GMT

The current Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver are officially green by LEED standards. From the Olympic Village that houses the athletes to the various venues, there are MANY green features that were brought into this most wonderful event for the world to see.

For starters, the medals awarded to the athletes are made from recycled electronics (materials and resources credit here)

The athletes themselves made a call to address the issues of global warming, as they can see first hand the, effects of not taking action. The Winter Games depend on snow and ice; global warming drastically effects this. David Suzuki, of the foundation that bears his name, has placed supreme emphasis on this fact, and says that choices that we make today will effect the future of where and how future Winter Games will be held.

A scorecard was put together that details this effort, and can be found on the David Suzuki Foundation web Site http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate%20Change/Projects/Olympics/default%20asp

Ten areas were addressed, and overall, the Vancouver Games performed with a Bronze level. The ten areas covered are:

Goals: A good effort to achieve renewable energy, as well as energy efficiency was achieved, but other areas were rated vague
In terms of transparency, the rating was quite good
Measuring Climatic Impact: A significant improvement was seen by the Vancouver Games in this area, when compared to previous Game Sites.
Venues: Once again, the Vancouver Games will leave the site with innovative and energy efficient buildings that will serve for many years after the Games.
Energy Use: The Vancouver Games use mostly clean energy sources, such as electricity from local natural hydroelectric systems, seawater and ground source heat.
Transportation: Even though reference have been made to the availability of free public transit, green house gas emissions were not dealt with properly.
Overall Green House Gas Emission Reduction: The reduction was about 15%
Offsetting Remaining Emissions: Half of the emission were reduced from game-related activities, a rather substantial amount.
Mobilizing Sponsors and Others: The Vancouver Games excelled here.
Public Engagement: This was rated the lowest of the ten areas, in terms of success on the part of the Vancouver Games.

Despite the above rating, the Games still rate VERY high in terms of sustainable design by even the LEED rating system, that has awarded the athlete's village a Gold Certification, while the community center is aiming for Platinum Certification. All buildings feature green (vegetative) roofs,s water collection systems for irrigation, passive solar design, upgraded insulation levels. Also included are Low or no VOC containing paint and carpets, the use of residual heat from the city's sewer system (innovation and design credit potential) and a ground source heat pump used to warm water that makes up the hydronic heating system. As mentioned above, electricity comes from local natural hydroelectric sources.

Free public transit is part of the effort, as well.

Even the village site was a former brown field site; meaning that it was reclaimed from a previous use, which will be turned into a mixed use sustainable community that will consist of stores, housing, daycare, and a community center after the Games.

The Richmond Oval, site of the speed skating events is built with a massive wood wave roof that comes from local lumber salvaged after a pine-bee

There are, however, critics that question just how green the Games really are, when on must factor in the vast emissions from trucks just to bring in the needed snow that nature did not provide. (Is this an early effect of global warming here?)

Despite any questions raised, in my opinion, the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games earn at least a Gold Medal for the sustainable design efforts and success that is clearly seen.

Permeable Pavement -- A New Approach To Storm Water Control and Water Quality and Supply Issues

Alan L. Englander — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:38:00 GMT

I have run across several articles on the topic of permeable pavement systems. As we all know, when land is paved with traditional concrete or asphalt, it becomes an Impervious surface which does not allow water to seep back into the earth below. This creates a major problem with storm water runoff, as well as not allowing for the natural recharge of the aquifer that supplies much of the drinking water in many areas.

Until only several months ago, I never realized that such product even existed. The first mentioning of this idea was at the November 30, 2009 meeting that the Rockland County Municipal Planning Federation held, in which a presenter briefly touched upon the idea.

This system will be of welcome to any designer or land-use planner dealing with a municipality that has a limit on the amount of allowable impervious surface. Obviously, the use of this system will allow for greater coverage for pavement than would be allowed for standard pavement.

After doing some research on my own, I have found that permeable pavement is now available in both concrete as well as asphalt. It has its major value in light traffic areas, such as parking lots, side walks and patios. This is due to the fact that both systems do not possess the strength needed to handle heavy highway or even secondary road traffic at this time.

In general, for both permeable concrete and asphalt, it is possible to achieve a permeability rate of not less than five gallons per square foot per minute. This is far greater than what would fall in a 100 year storm, the general standard by which storm water control must comply with.

In the case of permeable cement, it is the unique manufacturing process that allows for this to happen. First, there is a careful control of the amount of water and cement in the mix, so as to create a paste that forms a thick coating around the aggregate materials. Second, there is little or no sand in the mix. This now creates a highly permeable interconnected set of voids that allows for the fast rate of drainage through the pavement. In fact, the voids account for 15 to 25% of the product.

EcoCreto is an example of a permeable concrete system that now claims to have a hardened strength as high as 5000 pounds within 28 days, and is 100% permeable. In addition, EcoCreto claims to reduce storm water contaminates such as suspended solids by up to 90%. Also claimed, is the reduction of heavy metals by 40 to 90%, as well as the removal of 90% of mineral oils, and 60% of phosphorous. Obviously, this goes a long way in addressing a major issue -- storm water quality control. The LEED rating system deals with this as well as storm water quantity control. By pre treating the water contaminates prior to the water seeping back into the aquifer to this level, we provide for far better aquifer recharge protection in terms of both quality and quantity of the water. As a result of this, this product is recognized by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as a Best Management Practice (BMP) for the control and management of storm water runoff.

In addition to the advantages of the permeable pavement allowing for the water to penetrate into the soil below, the soil and adjacent sub-surface also further purify the water, via microbial activity.

We MUST note that the property in which permeable pavement is considered for use be evaluated for its ability to absorb the water; if the water table is already high, or there is the presence of heavy clay or solid bedrock, the system will have limited effectiveness.

In general, a 12 to 36 inch sub base is prepared under where the pavement will be laid. This will consist of gravel, and sometimes, a piping network to allow for the water to be either drained directly into the ground below, or if needed, re-directed to an alternative location for seepage into the aquifer.

Porous asphalt is created in a similar fashion, and has the same benefits as concrete.

In terms of cold weather performance, especially with snow and ice, I ran across a PDF of an article from Storm Water, (September, 2008) that said that these products can be used in cold climates; in fact, it was claimed up a 75% reduction in the need for salt application for de-icing -- a BIG help to the environment as well as a cost-saver. In addition, increased slip resistance was noted when permeable pavement was used. This is most likely due to two factors: the increased texture created by the voids at the surface, and the lack of sheet water flow, resulting in less ice formation. However, a designer needs to take into account the frequency of freeze-thaw cycles, as this can effect the performance of the permeability if the cycles are too quick. Under most cases, the system allows water to drain away to warmer ground below prior to the pores being clogged with ice.

In spite of the porous voids and stone-like surface, these products have seen no issues with pedestrian traffic, even with high heel shoe use.

When used with proper planning, it is quite possible to significantly reduce or possibly eliminate the need for actual storm water catch basins and piping, thus saving far more than what the initial additional cost of using permeable paving vs. conventional materials. Thus, we see the interconnection of trade-offs and synergies that I have mentioned elsewhere. The final result can be a lower life-cycle cost, especially given the fact that industry expectations for the permeable pavement products to have a longer service life than that of standard pavements.

We also will benefit from the reduction of standing pools of water in parking lots, which in summer, can breed mosquitoes and in winter, turn to slippery ice.

Even higher traffic areas can find a use for this product, as the entire shoulder area can be paved with permeable material, creating a continuous drain to the earth below, while the traffic lane is paved with stronger conventional pavement.

For light duty projects such as patios or side walks, a product known as PermaPave can be used. This has all the properties of the above mentioned products, but comes in pre-formed paver blocks similar to the standard blocks used in driveways that we see in almost all neighborhoods today. PermaPave comes in 12 colors and four different sizes, ranging from 16" x 16" down to 8" x 4". It is installed in a similar way as standard pavers, but one MUST pay attention to the proper preparation of the sub surface below, to allow for drainage into the aquifer.

In summary, we have MANY advantages to using porous pavement products, from the environmental point of view to reduced maintenance.

Energy Code Changes: What the Design Team Needs to Know: Session 5 -- Energy Modeling and the Energy Code

Alan L. Englander — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:07:00 GMT

On January 20, 2010 Adrian Tuluca, LEED AP, Principal, Viridian Energy and Environmental, LLC gave the fifth and final presentation in the Energy Code series that began on January 5th in NYC. His topic, which had been briefly referred to by earlier presenters dealt with the Energy Modeling Method to show code compliance.

The NYS Energy Code covers the building envelope, HVAC, Domestic Hot Water, Power, Lighting, and Motors.

In addition to reviewing the prescriptive and pre-packaged pathways for compliance, it was emphasized that lighting must be performed on a space-by-space basis only, and is only required in common areas in residential buildings, such as hallways, stairwell, and foyers.

For all other areas, the Space-by-Space or Whole Building method can be used. Regarding the use of modeling it is almost always the envelope that will be the deciding factor as to just which method a design team will use. It is here that the advantages or shortcomings of each method will be seen. In general, we do not see much modeling done at the residential level; the prescriptive, or now, more often than not, the pre-packaged methods, such as RES Check suffice well.

All models must show compliance with Envelope U and SHGC values; areas with higher Visible Transmittance are allowed greater glazing areas above the 50% standard. The SHGC MUST be less than .25 if glazing area is greater than 40.1%. Heat loss during winter must be a maximum of U 0.46 if glazing area is greater than 40.1%, and in nonresidential areas the maximum U value for heat loss is 0.124, while in residential, it is 0.064 for curtain walls. Many designs cannot easily meet these requirements, especially those that contain more than 50% glazing, have a SHGC of greater than .25, or have a maximum U value of 0.064 for residential curtain walls. This is where energy modeling usually enters the design process.

Modeling can take three forms: Energy Cost of Design (less energy cost than code allows), Code Model (meets mandatory and prescriptive requirements) and Design Model (Meets mandatory requirements BUT non-compliant parts such as glass facade and lighting may be offset by other components that are higher performing.

It is of interest, that if a team chooses to use modeling, under NYS Chapter 8, only 35% of area can be glazed if the Whole-Building Performance via modeling.

For Energy Cost Budget Method via ASHRAE 90.1 there are many forms of energy modeling software on the market, but the most common used for hourly simulations in the commercial area are DOE-2, e-Quest, TRACE, and HAP. The entire building is modeled. For Budget (baseline) model vs. design model, we MUST note that the rules are different for LEED, and one MUST be careful here NOT to use LEED rules (Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1) for NYS Energy Code compliance.

In Whole Building Modeling, for the envelope, we need massing of the building to reduce west exposure is needed, as are: Self shading, and exterior shading devices, daylight harvesting, active skins (solar panels), double envelopes that include internal shading and ventilation, as well as natural ventilation.

Solar Gain and Glazing Tilt can be of value here, as by means of tilting the glazing, heat can be deflected away from entering the building.

Regarding insulation in opaque walls, we always note that the assembly value is ALWAYS less than that of the Insulation U-Value. This is due to Thermal Bridging. This results in thermal short-circuiting in walls, roof parapets, slabs, mullions and columns. To deal with thermal bridging, one may use 3-D models such as Algor or HEATING-7, 2-D models such as FRAME or THERM, or the 1-D calculations that use the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Lastly, tabulations can be made via ASHRAE 90.1.

We will always see lower actual R-values in a wall that has shelf angles. (a wall below windows) To deal with this, cantilevered shelf angles can help to restore a great deal of the lost R-value.

With lighting, the Energy Cost Budget Method (ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Chapter 11) it is now evident that lower lighting density is now needed, as well as daylight harvesting and occupancy sensors. Light Shelves often do NOT increase the amount of light that will penetrate a space, but can create more comfort for the occupants.

The Energy Cost Budget Method for HVAC involves picking the correct values from Figure 11.3.2 to decide on the Budget System Type, and then using Table 11.3.2A to get the Budget System Description. In the HVAC area, strategies include: Efficient equipment, controls, Ice Storage (I wrote on this in an earlier entry last July) Combined Heat and Power (Fuel Cells, Micro turbines, Reciprocating Cogen (I wrote on this in early 2009) as well as back pressure turbines.

A VERY important note regarding energy modeling: One must NEVER use a model to predict real -life energy use; it is to be ONLY used for compliance verification. One MAY be able to predict real-life energy usage by adjusting the Energy Code Model.

For Energy Code Compliance:

Sizing and energy cost -- use DOE-2, ENERGY-PLUS
Daylighting and Lighting -- use RADIANCE
Air Temperature and Movement -- use CFD 2000, FLUENT
Thermal Bridges -- use ALGOR, THERM, FRAME
Moisture Mitigation -- use MOIST, WUFI

We will ALWAYS note that energy modeling tools will be off by as much as 25% for code or LEED compliance, and at least 10% off for real-life, even when all inputs are known. Even with laboratory experiments, we will often see as much as 5% differences. These values refer to DOE-2. (Energy-Plus give better results, but is still too difficult to use as of now.) Why is this so? The reason is that Code Models assume perfection, and hence Energy Model must as well. Thus, we need a different model for the prediction of actual use. Buildings are dynamic, and we do NOT have control of them once they are in the post-occupancy stage.

The Codes do NOT account for three-dimensional effects building envelope components, such as wall to slab assemblies, roof parapets, brick ties, shelf angles, as well as junction between horizontal and vertical mullions. In addition a process known as Stack Effect (where heat is drawn upward at greater velocities with increasing heights) heat loss from piping, as well as other energy usage not covered in the compliance areas such as voltage drops in feeders. Thus, a proper energy model MUST take these items into account.

In summary, Energy Modeling is a powerful tool, and is often necessary to prove compliance with the code. It is the design of the building envelope that will determine whether or not to use energy modeling. It is also important to note that at this time, energy modeling must NOT be used to predict actual energy usage; there are still too many variable that are not accounted for. Whatever method is used, perhaps the single most important item is to get the correct information together for the actual submittal to the Department of Buildings. Once again, the process known as Integrated Building Design can be of great help here. In this process errors are greatly reduced, as ALL team members are aware of what each other is doing at ALL times; they are all "on the same page."

Energy Code Changes: What the Design Team Needs to Know -- Session 4 -- Mechanical Systems and the Energy Code

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:58:00 GMT

On January 19, Session 4 of the Energy Code Changes series that began earlier this month was held in New York City. This session dealt with Mechanical Systems, which include the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning systems. The presenter was John Rundell, P. E., LEED AP, Consulting Engineer with Buro Happold.

John, as others mentioned earlier, it is the 2007 NYS Energy Conservation Code (ECCNYS) of 2007 that is the basis for the code that is followed here, and that New York City is making major changes at its local municipal level. He also reviewed the importance of correct and complete submittal documents for each application. (See my earlier blog entries on this)

Of particular importance in the Mechanical Systems area is the P. W. 1 Form, where the energy analysis method is clearly spelled out -- whether it be RES or COM Check, or more detailed energy modeling. It was emphasized here that the supporting documents show the equipment types, efficiency levels, size, as well as duct seal and insulation levels. One of the most common mistakes is for the design team to use and refer to the 2007 ASHRAE 90.1. NYS still uses the 2004 version. Also, teams do not coordinate notes on construction documents with the ECCNYS.

It is important to note that the current version of the ECCNYS resembles the 2003 version of the IECC (International Energy Conservation Code) BUT NYS does NOT actually use this code.

Once again, there are two ways towards compliance: Prescriptive (following certain set levels) or Performance. For each of these, there is the Residential path and the Commercial path. Residential is low-rise. (under four stories) The commercial path is needed for everything else, including higher rise residential.

There are 10 separate chapters, (chapters 5-7 have been abandoned) to this code. The most important chapters are described below:

Chapter One deals with administrative and enforcement issues. In this area, the 50% exemption rule on alterations (EXCEPT FOR NYC) is found. Specific exemptions -- e.g. historical or low-energy use (less than 3.4 BTU per Square Foot) buildings are also covered.
Chapter 2 gives the definitions BUT NOT TECHNICAL terms.
Chapter 3 defines the Climate Zones, which are VERY critical in the design and application process. Many mistakes are made here!!! For NYC, the Climate Zone specifies that the following Design Temperature Conditions be used: 89 / 73 degrees F. for cooling and 13 degrees for heating -- NO Exceptions here; one CANNOT design a building to handle more than these parameters.
Chapter 4 covers the Mechanical Requirements, Performance, R-Values of duct insulation, duct leakage allowances, HVAC types. Chapter 4 also specifies that sticker MUST be place in or on the building that gives this information in an prominent location. Electric Resistive Heat Sources have much more stringent requirements. It is also now a requirement that each system have its own control, and more specifically, each residential dwelling MUST have a programmable thermostat. For ducts that run OUTSIDE of the envelope, the R-Value for insulation is now 8, and building cavities can no longer be used as a duct system. Piping must have an R-2 value at a minimum if the carrying fluid is lower than 55 degrees F., or greater than 105 degrees F. Piping insulation is now required on all hot water re-circulation systems, such as those found in hotels. Equipment sizing is done either by Manual J (for simpler projects) or ASHRAE. One MUST select equipment to meet minimum Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) These are: 90% for gas furnaces, Oil is 82%, while gas boilers are still 82% Heat Pumps cannot fall below 8.2 EER.
Chapter 8 spells out the commercial code in more detail. Here, we see the option of using ASHRAE 90.1 or the prescriptive method, or we can use a more involved energy modeling method to prove compliance. We will note the presence of Mandatory Provisions that MST be met, such as Heating and cooling equipment controls, HVAC equipment minimum efficiency levels, envelope dampers must NOT leak more than 3 Cubic Feet Per Minute, the use of gravity dampers is limited to buildings of less than three stories, and EACH system MUST have a separate control. We also see the need for air economizers on recovery systems, and the system of greatest load MUST be the basis for the load calculation. Sequenced controls are required for complex systems, and once again there is NO ALLOWANCE for over sizing of equipment; this means that a client cannot install additional equipment to facilitate a faster morning recovery of heat or cooling. HVAC Performance Requirements MUST be met, and federal codes supersede the state or local codes here. For many mechanical systems, the Coefficient of Performance (COP) is now greater than six; hence the new code has taken this into account, and one MUST refer to Chapter 8 for the specific levels needed here.

Controls are perhaps the most difficult of all areas to meet, as each system must have its own control. For temperature, a programmable thermostat is needed. For humidity, one cannot control below 60% in summer or 30% in winter.

Ventilation can be either mechanical OR natural, BUT one MUST provide for a means of reducing outside air to the minimum needed for the code (ASHRAE 62.1) Systems larger than 65 MBH MUST have an air-side economizer. Shut-off dampers are needed. Duct sizing is done in regard to the nationally accepted industry standard, SMACC.

Regarding the piping of fluids, controls MUST be used to prevent the re-heating of cooled water, and a three-pipe system is no longer allowed. In systems that provide both heating and cooling, during a change-over between heat or cooling, there must be a 15 degree dead band, and a minimum of four hours must elapse between the change-over. Hydronic heat pumps have a 20 degree dead band (where there is no heating or cooling being done), and must re-use heat from the loop, except in the cases where a system has intelligent controls built in.

Part Load Controls are now needed for systems larger than 300 MBH. A need to allow for a reduction of pump speed by one-third is also needed when a pump is larger than 7.5 H. P.

For Multiple Control Containing Systems, such as Variable Air Volume Systems, design MUST now prevent the unnecessary reheating of air. (Reheating of air is often used and needed in the dehumidification process.) A means to reduce air flow to 30% is needed of systems utilizing re-heating and it must be less than 300 CFM. Exceptions for Variable Air Volume system requirements include areas such as: hospital operating rooms, areas where 75% or more of the air is from solar or Renewable Energy sources, and single duct systems.

All systems must now provide a statement showing that balancing has been competed, an operating manual, HVAC controls manual, and a written narrative.

Heat Recovery for service hot water is now required; thus the need to recover condenser heat. Also, for service hot water, it now required that the first eight feet of pipe be insulated to at least a one-half inch thickness of industry standard pipe insulation.

In summary, a design team MUST refer to the Code often, especially during the early stages of planning and design to make sure that they are able to comply with and accommodate the needed equipment, sizing, controls and insulation levels. In doing so, MUCH time and effort will be saved, and the process will run far smoother to completion. This is where the Integrated Building Design process will serve well.

Energy Code Changes: What the Design Team Needs to Know: Session 3 -- Lighting Design and the Energy Code

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:01:00 GMT

The topic of lighting was the subject of the third session in this series of Energy Code Changes lectures, and was held in New York City on Thursday, January 7 2010.

Hayden McKay, AIA, FIALD, FIES, LEED AP, Principal of Hayden McKay and Shoshanna Segal, LC, IALD, LEED AP, Controls Team Leader, Horten Lees Brogden Lighting Design were the two presenters.

The first part of the presentation gave us an overview of the importance that lighting is playing in the energy consumption area, as well as common perceptions of what efficiency versus effective lighting means to the overall issue.

Once again. greenhouse gases and light pollution are the driving issues in the quest for better lighting efficiency in the new codes. Lighting alone accounts for 15% of the CO2 footprint of NYC, and has risen 70% since the 1970's

An important note that was made here is that conservation without quality is NOT the answer to our problems; we cannot just reduce light output and say we have solved the issue. To do so, will result in poorly or even unsafe levels of light, creating a dysfunctional work place, as well as quality of life. Also, different spaces call for different approaches. For example, retail space can often get away with more shadow effect than would an office, where glare can be very detrimental to the productivity of the workers.

As we spend over 80% of our time indoors, it is important to have lighting that creates a stimulating and connected environment, without creating glare or vision issues. We note that only within the last century has electric (artificial light) been the mainstay of indoor lighting; prior to this,natural day lighting was the primary source, even in factories. We have all seen the photos of factories dating back to early part of the 1900's and we note the presence of skylights in the center of these buildings. Also, skylights where also used at the top of stairwells for the same purpose.

When day light is used, we need to control glare and solar heat gain. While both are comfort and productivity issue, the second will adversely effect energy consumption, if not properly controlled with shading measures. Glare can result in the silhouette effect, and can make items difficult to see or make out, due to the eye accommodation factor. When designing with day lighting -- and LEED strongly encourages this -- we need to address the issue of sky condition. Sky condition will be greatly different on a cloudy day, or be dependent on the time of day. Also, the building orientation will play a role here. In NYC, what appears to run due south really does NOT; this means that the real day time peak for lighting occurs in the afternoon hours, not at high noon.
Fenestration and floor to ceiling ratios are also an important area. IN NYC, we have a large number of buildings that have tall almost floor to ceiling windows that are excellent for day light use.

When electric luminaires are used, especially the T-5 and LED sources, care must be taken not to use them as open fixtures, as they can result in harsh conditions. It was stressed several times that the main aim here is to light the space first, and avoid specular louvers. In doing this, we create a balanced lit area, with minimal glare and shadows. This will often result in far less "task lighting" to be needed; reducing the overall plug load on the total building area being addressed.

It is also important to consider the area surfaces as well. Light colored matte finished walls result in far better lighting coverage per watt used, and we need to avoid shiny surfaces and mirrors as much as possible. However, in retail areas, where drama and effect are more important, these needs can be relaxed as needed, as long as the code is met regarding the allowable watts per square foot.

Lighting technologies are rapidly changing. Incandescent, once the mainstay of all lighting, is fast disappearing from commercial as well as residential use. Even research into improving Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL's) has stopped. In fact, the presenters predict that CFL's have about 20 years of use before they, too, will become extinct. (The issue with CFL's is the problem with the small amount of mercury that they contain, and how to safely recycle them.) LED lighting sources are now the hot area of research, and thus this is fast gaining presence in the market. LED sources also do NOT contain mercury. However, LED still has many pitfalls, and is not always adaptable to all projects. LED is still VERY expensive compared to other sources. Metal halide lamps are also good for large areas, and wall washing applications, as they have a good color rendition. Color rendition is also a part of the design concern, as if it causes surfaces to perceived in the wrong tone, the efforts of conservation are totally lost. The most effective lighting may not always have the highest lumen output. this especially true with LED sources, where warm white offers the best color rendition, but has a lower lumen output per watt.

In commercial sites, the linear fluorescent is still the mainstay, with the T8 and T5 lamps predominating. In general, luminaires are NOT a good choice for lighting, as distribution of light is often uneven, and shadows can result. A better approach is to use a combination of sources. Also, recessed parabolic specular fixtures should be avoided, due to the glare issues associated with them. Pendant up and down is now the best choice, as it provides both direct and indirect sources of lighting, resulting in a more even shadow-free lit area. In spite of all efforts mentioned above, task lighting is often the ONLY way to meet the code.

There are several important strategies used here.

Day light harvesting. When used, there is a need to control the use of electric light during the available day lit period through sensors or other switching control, such as digital timers or stand alone presets.
Zoning. Label and properly locate all switches. The use of commissioning is highly recommended here, but NOT required by the Code. Commissioning IS needed for a LEED certified project.
Integrated Team Effort. Focus on quality and use technology AFTER proper design.

Next, the presenters dealt with the code itself. As we heard in sessions 1 and 2, it is the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that is the basis here, although there is a separate NYS code that can be used. The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) plays a role, but is NOT part of the New York State Code as of yet.

A design team MUST have access to a copy of the Code, and reference it as needed; do not rely on COM Check alone!

Once again, we have two methods for compliance -- Prescriptive, which sets forth a rigid schedule for wattage and fixture layout, and the Performance method, which allows the team to use an integrated whole building or area approach, thus giving more flexibility in the design process. Both methods have mandatory provisions for occupancy controls and allowable exterior lighting usage levels. The NYS code, while based on 90.1 does not offer as much design choice for power allowances; hence most are now using 90.1 to comply at the NYS level, even though it is more complex.

The whole building approach is good, but offers little room for error. It is also VERY important to have good documentation as to the location and number of fixtures in your submittal. There is a need to MANUALLY INPUT total system wattages; often design teams leave out the ballast load, which can be considerable.

Area Category is also used for compliance. In this approach, each space is totaled separately, but when taken into the whole building, the proper watts per square foot are met by trade-offs from one area to another. This allows for more light intensity to be used where needed, and less where not. There is also the allowance for exemptions in this approach, but this can be time consuming. If exemptions are used, it is necessary to separate the fixtures in the submittal documents. In addition, trade-offs can ONLY be used in that space alone -- NOT elsewhere in the building. The important idea here is to get the total allowable wattage. for the entire building to met in order to comply. Total power MUST NOT exceed specified amount for project.

Other issues are:

Wattage consumption and lighting power density
Exit signage limited to 5 watts or less
Mandatory controls -- for example occupancy sensors, or timers
Voltage Drop
Compliance Statement signed by a licensed professional

There is also a need to control excessive night lighting; hence the need for the occupancy controls. The common perception that there is a uniform level of light needed throughout the building is FALSE.

In summary:

Useful Strategies:

Re-light rather than retrofit.
Use tall windows to maximize day lighting effects.
Use High Performance Glazing (.35 to .70 VLT)
Separate metering -- now required in NYC for commercial spaces.
Use high ceilings.
Light spaces first.
Use glazed interior walls between spaces to allow for day light penetration.
Smart space plans.
Multiple zones.
Technology must serve NOT lead.
Consult your Department of Buildings for latest code updates.

All submittals must have:

Professional Statement as to whom accepts responsibility for the project.
Owner's Statement.
Energy analysis -- COM Check or ECC, or more detailed simulation modeling.
Supporting Documents -- lighting layout, sensors, controls, luminaire schedule, total input wattages.

A FINAL NOTE: As I mentioned in the first session's article, one the main concerns here in dealing with the Code and its significant changes is the need to fully and properly document all required information in what is submitted to the Department of Buildings. As Debra Taylor pointed out quite clearly, 75% of all submittals fail to do this. As a result, projects are held up by the need to re-submit their applications. In my opinion, this is where the Integrated Building Design process can be of great help; here we will have ALL involved parties on the "same page" through out the entire process, from earliest planning and design to post-occupancy. This has been shown to reduce errors and omissions substantially, while increasing the speed in which the project is competed. A part of this team should be a member that will act as a documentation submittal auditor to serve as an additional layer of review prior to the actual submittal to the Department of Buildings.

Energy Code Changes: What the Design Team Needs to Know: Session 2 -- Building Envelope

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:57:00 GMT

Session 2 of the Energy Code Series dealt with the building envelope and how the code changes affect this area. Michael Waite, LEED AP from Simpson Gumpertz and Heger was the presenter.

Mr. Waite emphasized, that from the earliest phase of planning and design it is a MUST to reference the energy code. This is where Integrated Building Design excels. The code should really be used as a guide from this point onward. As mentioned earlier, it is really the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that comprises the New York State Energy Code, but any locality such as NYC can adapt a more stringent code.

Some general definitions:
R-value, which is the measure of heat (or cold) resistance.
U-value is the measure of heat transfer through a system.
The C-factor is a measure of thermal conductance, and is used below grade, while the F-factor is used as measure of conductance for slab or grade floors.
SHGC, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient is the measure of solar source heat gain through the envelope system.
The Window to Wall Area is the ratio of the vertical fenestration (window or door opening area) to that of the gross wall area.

There are several compliance methods here, and they include both a prescriptive and performance pathway. In the prescriptive path, one just simply follows allowed R- and U-Values for a given area; while in the performance path, one will calculate them, and trade back and forth between components to arrive at the allowable total R- or U-Value. Both methods contain mandatory provisions, such as air leakage and window to wall ratios. For smaller or less complex buildings, a design team will often just use RES Check (for residential) or COM Check (for commercial) These are free software programs that allow for all R and U values, gross areas, cavity spaces, window and door schedules, type of heating system to entered in spreadsheet form, and the program will calculate whether the building meets the code, if so, by how much beyond code compliance.

Climate Zone is a major factor here, and the correct zone MUST be entered. Also, it is VERY important to enter the correct code, as each state differs.

Residential is defined as low rise limited to less than three stories; all other buildings are classified as commercial. R and U values are needed to be entered for all envelope assemblies, but there is NO SHGC requirement at the residential level; SHGC IS needed for commercial.

There is a mandatory provision in the code that now specifies the maximum allowable air leakage to be complied with. This is defined as less than 5.5 air changes per hour at a pressure of five Pascals, and can be confirmed with an ASTM E-799 Blower Door Test.

A vapor barrier on the warm side in winter is now needed.

For the UA calculations, the lower the number the better the building performs.

Commercial Code is far more complex in scope of required data. Once again, in New York State, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is used, but ECCNYS Chapter 8 can also be followed. For commercial, most prefer to follow ASHRAE 90.1, as it allows for more flexibility and area trade-offs.

If a building will have more than 50% of its Window to Wall ratio, it is mandatory to use simulation modeling to comply; simple UA calculations will NOT surfice. In this case, shading devices are needed here. The mandatory provisions are still the same here, and include air leakage, recessed light fixture limits.

There is a need to define walls in commercial building submittals, but orientation is optional. R and U values are input, as well as SHGC, Roof Type, Cavity Insulation type, basement walls and their height of grade level. If the basement is unheated, the values for the floor of the first floor are used.

For U values, care is really needed here. Many mistakes are made by using the Center of Glass U Value for a window rather then the required total U-Value for the complete assembly. The same is true for walls; one MUST factor in the framing schedule, as thermal bridging plays a BIG role! U-Values can also be modeled, as can fenestration.

The Projection Factor plays a big role in the performance of a window. If the window sits inside of the outer wall (recessed), and is located over the insulation, the R-Value is increased.

Once again Mr. Waite emphasized the need for proper care to be taken when making the submittal to the Department of Buildings. The following are needed here:

Professional Statement
Energy Analysis and drawings signed and sealed by a licensed professional
Compliance Certificate for New and Alterations that includes the correct climate zone
Supporting documentation, such as construction drawings, descriptive properties about door and window assemblies, among other items, as deemed necessary for the project.

It is VERY important to note that just because a building complies "on paper" there is NO guarantee that it will perform as such! This is where the commissioning process comes in to play. NYC has addressed this very well, as has LEED.

In future, we will be seeing increased R-Value levels, decreased U and SHGC values, as well as more restrictions on glazing areas. We will also see envelope provisions that take into account the benefits of day lighting. As we know, LEED addresses this very well.

Energy Code Changes: What the Design Team Needs to Know -- Session 1

Alan L. Englander — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:30:00 GMT

The Urban Green Council (New York Chapter of U S Green Building Council) has teamed up with ASHRAE and AIA to offer a five-part lecture series that focuses on the changes that we need to be keenly aware of regarding the energy code -- especially for New York City.

In this first session, an overview of the Code changes was given. At this time, we need to be aware of four main items that have been significantly changed, or will be by July 1 of this year.

The renovation exemption has been eliminated in NYC on ALL projects where any change has been made to a part of a building. Prior to this, any building that undertook renovations was exempt if less than 50 percent of the building was not altered. Now, the part of the building undertaking ANY structural change, regardless of the size of the area, WILL need to meet the energy code; the remaining untouched areas will not be affected. This takes effect on July 1 in NYC; the remainder of NY State will keep the 50% threshold for now.

Audits and retro-commissioning are now part of the new requirements, as are retrofits for buildings 50,000 SF and larger.

Benchmarking of energy and water usage is now required for buildings 50,000 SF and larger. This starts on May 1, 2010, and will be disclosed to public by September, 2011.

Lighting System Upgrades MUST be made in ALL commercial buildings by 2025.

Deborah F. Taylor, AIA, LEED AP, Chief Sustainability Officer of the NYC Department of Buildings outlined and offered more details on these important changes.

Buildings account for 80% of all CO2 emissions as of now, but we have had an energy code at the state level in New York since 1979.

As of now, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (version 2004) is the back-bone of the code, but there is talk of possibly taking all or parts of ASHRAE 189 P and incorporating into the state code in the future. If done, this would have the possible effect of increasing the level of energy efficiency by at least 30% from today's levels. Global warming and climate changes are the driving force behind these current changes. While the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)Code is often referenced by energy efficiency experts, it is NOT the law in New York State at this time.

It MUST be noted that while the NYS code must be followed, any municipality may adapt a more stringent code. NYC has chosen to do this, as it is felt that it accounts for such a large amount of energy usage that combines to produce such a large CO2 footprint..

NYC has adapted a plan earlier last year that will, by 2030, reduce carbon emissions by 30%. Buildings that are over 50,000 Square Feet in size face the largest brunt of the new Code, and these amount to 22,000 buildings city-wide. These 22,000 buildings amount to only 2% of the total buildings city-wide, BUT make up over half the total city-wide energy usage.

The Audit and Retro-Commissioning requirements are TWO SEPARATE procedures but can be completed in one step. They will be done on a ten-year cycle. The aim here is to ensure that that buildings are performing energy-wise, as they were designed to do.

Lighting alone, amounts to 20% of energy use, and thus, this why lighting retrofits are now part of the new law. Each building has until 2025 to make the upgrades to the now (or future) current code.

Supporting Documentation has also been addressed in the revised code. It will include an energy analysis (RES Check or COM Check) that MUST be signed by a licensed professional. This can also be done by a more sophisticated energy modeling or simulation process. Also part of the submittal will be Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) R-Values for roof, wall and foundations, (U-values if simulation modeling is done in place of RES or COM Check) and the need for these items to be clearly set out on the submitted drawings, in tabular form, or where appropriate, on the drawing area as well. Documentation is KEY here; as of now 75% of all submittals to the NYC DoB fail to provide the needed information to pass the inspection process.

Regarding the lighting upgrades, if they are done by June 30 of this year, they will allowed to meet the current NYS code, and be good for the 2025 requirement; after that date, they MUST meet whatever the new NYS code will be.

Sub Metering for electrical usage is now required for ALL commercial tenant occupied space, but due to the current NYS Public Service laws, the landlord may only charge a separate bill for this in newly created spaces. Thus, for existing spaces, this will serve as an incentive for the tenant, once his/her usage is known, to attempt to reduce it.

As we can well see, this will create a need for more green jobs, especially for that of a Certified Energy Manager. It must be noted that a Certified Energy Manager will NOT be able to sign off on a set of submittal documents; this MUST be done by a licensed professional, such as a Professional Engineer.

Part 2 through 5 of this series will deal with the specifics of the Building Envelope, Lighting, Mechanical Systems, and Energy Modeling.

Is Brown the New Green?

Alan L. Englander — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:32:00 GMT

The November, 2009 McGraw Hill Construction Continuing education center focused on the use of brown field re-development in the creation of mixed use communities.

It has been widely known that the LEED system has embraced the re-development of brown fields as a means of fostering sustainable growth, as well as revitalizing urban (as well as non-urban) areas. Brown fields are defined as areas that have either been abandoned or otherwise underutilized. These portions of land often create eyesores, reduce tax revenues, and are in many other ways a drain on a community.

By re-developing these sites into once again productive use, we not only revitalize the community, but reduce the amount new virgin land that must cleared to gain the same purpose. The Sustainable Sites section of LEED awards specific credits in this area.

In urban areas, these site are often centrally located, and near existing services. This fact alone makes them an excellent candidate for the creation of mixed use communities. Brown fields were once thought to be only abandoned industrial sites, but now this has been broadened into others as well. By this, we mean that a project may often have residential and commercial uses combined into one integrated land use application. This has the advantages of creating a mix of new retail, residential, office and park space into one project, creating a interconnected community with easy access by all stake-holders. In the process, we see a reduction in traffic and parking needs, as residents can often walk to work or stores from their homes.

One issue driving this effort has been the lessening of liability issues due to the better assessment and clean-up tools that have become common place prior to the start of these projects. Local governments have also embraced this trend, and for good reason -- it puts these properties back on the tax rolls.

MIT in Cambridge, MA provides a good example of where a mixed use community was developed from a previously underutilized site. MIT began to acquire 27 acres adjacent to the west of its campus. These acres were comprised of run-down industrial and residential sites. MIT decided to employ research and development in the effort to create a site where new technology could result from academia and land use in the private sector. In doing this, they envisioned the collaboration of entrepreneurial and professors to be in close proximity with each other. This process created a vibrant new community, while minimizing the issues of entitlement. As mentioned above, this effort also had the benefit of traffic mitigation, as by encouraging commuting by biking, ride share or even walking. the MIT center was originally intended to serve the computer and defense related technologies, but evolved later into research and development, a hotel, and five residential properties that now offer a true mixed use community. This offers an affordable place for a combined workforce, retail and residential uses, while at the same time creating what is known by LEED as community connectivity, for which LEED awards points towards certification. It should also be noted that it is not only LEED for new construction, but now the new LEED for Neighborhood Development that embraces this concept.

MIT faced many challenges in this project. First, they had to deal with the fact that the site was originally created by filling in a salt marsh adjacent to the Charles River. It was also found that the soil fill contained lead, necessitating care not create a major disposal issue if it were removed. Since the area was only nine feet above the water table, it was decided not build below grade level, thus reducing the contaminated soil disposal issues. Thus, the environmental clean up was more easily incorporated into the budget.

Another project mentioned in this review is the Piedmont Triad Research Park (PTRP) in Winston-Salem, NC. Wake Forest University Health Sciences re-developed a 230 acre historic business site into a mixed use park with life sciences and technology as its primary use. This site was located about two mile from the medical center, but was able to meet the needs of the plan. The idea was to offer access to nature, biking, as well as walking routes, as well as a significantly improved storm water control.

The Piedmont Triad Research Center plan thus evolved into an urban re-development project that offers green areas mixed in with densely spaced buildings. The result was to create a mix of lab, office, retail, entertainment and housing on this once mostly industrial site. Several historic buildings, including a tobacco warehouse are slated to be converted into new uses, such as condos and apartments.

As PTRP was so large and contained many environmental issues, the State of North Carolina asked that it be split into three separate districts. In the process, brown field designation was obtained, leading to funding for clean-up and other remedial matters. In this case, as is often the case in brown field re-development, a massive amount of clean up was needed. Underground petroleum storage tanks were discovered, and had to safely removed. In addition, the project was required to build a new concrete plant off-site to replace one that they had to remove from their site.

The article goes on to mention a third example near Seattle, WA, known as South Lake Union. This was originally an industrial site dating back to the late 19th century. Environmental concerns such as asbestos and dry cleaning chemicals had to be dealt with. In addition, there were several historic use buildings that remained. It was felt beneficial to gain landmark status for them, and hence preserve and incorporate them into the re-development. They added character to the project.

Rather than try to develop the entire site at once, a coordinated staged plan was used, whereby it would be done block, by block, to allow it grow as needs dictated -- a rather organic approach, as compared to a standard research park, which is often done in one stage. the goal here too, was to produce a mixed use neighborhood, with a focus on life sciences.

As with many brown field sites, there were already in place services such as streets, sewers, water, good bus service and two parks. One very important goal was to further add public transportation, by the addition of a street car system that tied into downtown.

It must be noted that all buildings will incorporate green technologies. The entire project is slated to be the first LEED certified project under the USGBC LEED for Neighborhood Development.

In short, while each brown field re-development is different, they all share similarities. The aim is to revitalize an aging underused property into a vibrant, environmentally sound functioning community.

Green Design and Energy Issues Facing Planning and Zoning Boards

Alan L. Englander — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:01:00 GMT

On November 30, the Rockland County Municipal Planning Federation held a three-hour seminar on Green Design and Energy Issues. The aim of this was to foster increased interest in having local planning and zoning boards incorporate green and sustainable practices into projects and applications that come before them for review and ultimate approval.

Rockand County, like all of New York State has a Home Rule Policy that delegates the ultimate decisions on planning to be made by the local governing municipality, NOT at the county or state. Thus, an effort is clearly needed to insure that local boards have the exposure to the cutting-edge developments in the green and sustainable building area.

An overview of sustainable and energy saving measures was presented that included information on what constitutes an Energy Star home, as well as site plan issues dealing with green infrastructure measures that can better manage storm water run-off.

Energy efficiency in buildings was covered, including the potential for increased solar and wind applications that can easily be incorporated into existing planning and zoning regulations.

Perhaps the real highlight for me, when it came to real new information was the concern raised by Gordon Wren, the Rockland County Director of Fire and Emergency Services. Mr. Wren is a strong supporter of the green movement, but offered us sound observations on several areas that planners (and the general public as well) need to be aware of. First, he mentioned hybrid vehicles, buses, in particular. While green in nature, these vehicles contain as part of their storage batteries a caustic electrolyte agent that, if spilled, can cause environmental damage, as well as personal injury to first responders if the bus is involved in an accident.

Mr. Wren went on to discuss the issues that can arise with homes and buildings that have placed solar voltaic systems on their roofs. First, firefighter cannot open a roof as they normally would. In addition, the system must be de-energized prior to emergency responders coming in contact with it. Enough electrical power is present in the inverter system to cause electrocution.

In addition, as we make buildings tighter in terms of air infiltration, we must provide for appropriate ventilation and humidity control; otherwise unhealthy conditions will and have occurred, such as mold growth and toxic vapor build-up.

Tony Lisanti, the Secretary of the Building Performance Contractors Association of NY State gave a run-down on Energy Star and energy audits. He told us that Energy Star really just involves increasing the energy efficiency by 15 greater than that required by state code. He went on to describe the HERS rating system. The HERS (Home Energy Rating System) is based on how well a building performs as compared to code benchmark for that type of building; the higher the number score, the less efficient the building is. If the score is 220, it is VERY bad; 150 equals average performance, while Energy Star equals 80 or less. Mr. Lisanti showed us infrared analysis studies that clearly showed what looked like good workmanship in the installation of fiberglass insulation was not at all. He also mentioned the need for energy audits to done on all new and renovated buildings, as it is amazing just how poorly some building have been performing despite the expenditure of funds for such new technologies as solar voltaic and geothermal systems. If the building envelope is too loose, all can be lost and then some, on the upgrades.

Another important highlight covered that faces all planning applications at the site plan review level is the new upcoming changes to the NYS Storm water Management Practices Law in 2010. Barbara Kendal from the NYS DEC and Hudson River Estuary Program told us, that for the first time, Green Infrastructure WILL now be part of the MS-4 requirements. This means that planners will not only have to control storm water runoff to pre-existing levels, BUT incorporate such measures as vegetated swails, engineered soil drainage systems that collect and slowly release water to the ground below for infiltration back into the water table. She also mentioned the use of impervious concrete for parking areas, and the need to reduce areas covered by side walks and parking area to a minimum, which may very well require local zoning laws to be changed.

In summary, green and sustainable building will need to dealt with at the local planning level, but we do NOT need to fear; the costs do NOT have to increase for one to comply. It is now the time for local planning boards to take inventory of existing procedures when deliberating and approving site plans and buildings. Some local zoning laws will need to amended to allow for these new requirements that will soon become state law in New York.