150312 updating history_deep_retrofits
-
Upload
melaniebissonnette -
Category
Documents
-
view
273 -
download
0
Transcript of 150312 updating history_deep_retrofits
Energy Trust New Buildings Updating History: Deep Retrofits for Historic Projects March 12th, 2015
Small Commercial Market Solutions Energy Trust New Buildings
Small office
Retail
Restaurant
Primary school
Multifamily
Grocery
Incentive workbooks
Path to Net Zero
It all adds up to zero • Increased incentives
for early design, technical assistance, installation and post-occupancy
• Technical resources and assistance from kick-off through occupancy
• Incentives for net-zero certification
Incentives & resources for early design • Facilitated kick-off meeting to adopt an EUI
target that aligns with the Architecture 2030 Challenge
• Up to $10,000 to offset a design charrette to refine approach and goals using:
• EUI targeting tool • Shoebox modeling
• Construction Document review (required)
Technical assistance & incentives
• 75 percent of the cost of energy studies, up to $50,000, including:
• Early design shoebox modeling • CFD analysis • Daylighting studies • Energy modeling • Commissioning design review
Installation incentives
• Modeled savings: $0.40/kWh, $1.20/therm
- OR -
• Market solutions “very best” level
• Standard and/or special measure incentives
Performance & post-occupancy incentives • $0.15/sq ft for
functional testing, up to $40,000
• Up to $40,000, or 50 percent of cost of energy metering
Incentives for net-zero certification • 50 percent of the cost
of net-zero certification from the International Living Future Institute, ILFI (including application fee)
Allies for Efficiency Training Series • Advance trainings on high-performance
• Continuing Education Credits (AIA, LFA and CCB)
• Registration priority for New Buildings Trade and Design Allies
Upcoming Trainings and Events • March 17th – Solar Design Training (At
capacity)
• June 4th – Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero
• August 6th – Commercial Building Design & Occupant Engagement (tentative date)
• October 2015 – Advance Envelope Design (tentative date)
Training & Education
Today’s Agenda • 2:30pm to 4pm: Developer’s Perspective, Core
& Shell Construction and Energy Performance
• 4pm to 4:10pm: Break
• 4:10pm to 5pm: Tenant Improvement and Occupant Experience
• 5pm to 7pm: Catered Networking Reception & Building Tours
Allies for Efficiency
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot Retrofit
March 12, 2015
overview
Founded in 1996
45 professionals specializing in acquisitions, asset and property management, development, sustainable retrofits, finance, and accounting
$600 million of equity managed on behalf of clients
$5 billion worth of assets; over 60 development projects and retrofits
Currently operating in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston
Nationally recognized leader in sustainable development
ful l-service real estate investment, development, and asset management f irm
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot project summary
Program o 180,000 sf on four floors plus structured
parking o Full city block o Listed on National Historic register o Tenants : Vestas & Gerding Edlen
Financing o Total project cost: $66MM o Equity
• $17MM investor equity • $10.5MM historic tax credits
o Debt • $29MM senior loan • $8MM interest-free loan from the City
of Portland
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot project history
Acquired the building in 2008 and secured tenants; 75% pre-leased o GBD Architects o Skanska o Gerding Edlen o Portland Monthly
Began pre-development work on site,
developed 100% SD level drawings for core and shell
Financing fell through; building sat idle for
several years
Project re-start with Vestas in 2010 o Heavily recruited by the city o Alignment of sustainable vision o Unique workplace culture model
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot project highlights
Project Team o Kept Skanska as GC for core and shell o Kept GBD Architects as architect for core and
shell o Kept Glumac as MEP on the core and shell o Vestas selected TI team via competitive
process
Why? o Existing relationships o Expertise in sustainability o Knowledge of existing building conditions and
structural complexities
Result o Two general contractors (C&S, TI) o Two design firms (C&S, TI) o One LEED submittal; LEED Platinum certified
Features o Interior atrium for daylighting o Lighting controls and occupancy sensors o Operable windows o High efficiency envelope; glazing tuned to
each façade o Thermal mass - exposed concrete floors
and ceilings o Underfloor air distribution - floors 3 – 5 o Variable Refrigerant Flow system in
perimeter areas o Energy recovery on ventilation air system o 125 kW solar PV o Low-flow fixtures (reduce hot water energy
by 10%)
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot energy eff iciency highlights
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot project highlights
Challenges o Atrium - massive amounts of rebar required
as new stair cores act as shear elements
o Discovered during demolition that structural steel within concrete beams at the roof did not align
o Smoke control strategy associated with atrium
o Historic requirements Exposed concrete at the interior of the
windows Penthouse addition and setback
requirements Solar array nearly flat due to visibility
restrictions
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot project highlights
Opportunities o Facade Window height challenge helped
justify the investment in the underfloor air distribution system
Window system selection and sizing of VRF modules – project gained rentable square footage
Significant thermal mass in the existing concrete structure
o Used existing concrete “bunker” in
basement as a rainwater cistern
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
KBTU
s Meier & Frank Delivery Depot – 2012/2013 Energy Use
EUI = 26.3
Modeled Energy
Actual Energy
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot energy eff iciency incentives
Agency Description Incentive
State/Loca l : Green Investment Fund $ 25,000
Energy Trust of Oregon - Ef f i c iency $ 255,200
Energy Trust of Oregon – So lar $ 121,000
Bus iness Energy Tax Credi ts $ 336,000
Federa l : So lar Investment Tax Credi t $ 242,300
EPAC T Deduct ion $ 114,000
Subtota l : $ 1 ,093,500
$/SF $ 6 .00
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot development costs
Base Bui ld ing (Cost/sf )
Green Bui ld ing Premium/sf Tota l Cost/sf
Acquis i t ion & Re-development (CS+TI ) $ 342.85 $ 9 .30 $ 352.15 So lar Array $ - $ 4 .43 $ 4 .43 Des ign Costs $ 10.95 $ 1 .10 $ 12.05 Incent ives $ - $ (6 .00) $ (6 .00)
Subtota l $ 354.90 $ 8 .83 $ 379.11
% Premium 2.4%
Historic Tax Credits
$8MM interest-free loan (city of Portland) o No payments for 15 years o Lease rate $4/sf less than market
Property tax freeze
Energy efficiency and green incentives o Federal o State (BETC) o ETO
Sale or transfer of unused development rights
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot crit ical deal points
Rainwater cistern o Flush at project completion to help with
debris build-up and water discoloration o No ability to note the level of water in the
cistern
Exterior blinds on 5th floor o Installed at an angle due to the operable
windows – weights had to be added to keep them from flapping in the wind
Raised floor o Very effective, “plug and play” – no
contractors needed
Atrium o Challenging to clean the windows o No automated blind over the skylight
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot lessons learned
Allies for Efficiency
Meier & Frank Delivery Depot Retrofit
March 12, 2015
© 2015 Glumac
Energy Use Summary – Code Building
© 2015 Glumac
Energy Use Savings – Proposed Building
© 2015 Glumac
VRF – Modeled and Actual Performance
© 2015 Glumac
Raised Access Floor
Contributes to:
• 5% Cooling Energy Savings
• 6% Fan Energy Savings
© 2015 Glumac
Under Floor Air Characteristics
• Natural convection managed space temperature gradient
• Designed stratification
• Displacement ventilation
© 2015 Glumac
High Efficiency Lighting
• Direct/indirect fixture
• Dimmable lighting controls
• Contributes to: 13% Energy Savings
© 2015 Glumac
Rooftop Photovoltaics
Offsets:
• 8% of proposed design energy
• Whole building nearly 70% more efficient than code after PV
© 2015 Glumac
Daylighting – Atrium Space Without Skylight
© 2015 Glumac
Daylighting – Atrium Space With Skylight
© 2015 Glumac
VRF Schematic
Contributes to:
• 41% Heating Energy Savings
• 6% Fan Energy Savings
© 2015 Glumac
VRF – Fan Coil Under Floor
© 2015 Glumac
Design Challenge – Original System Design
© 2015 Glumac
Design Challenge – Original CFD Model
© 2015 Glumac
Revised System Design
© 2015 Glumac
Revised CFD Model
© 2015 Glumac
Thermal Mass
© 2015 Glumac
Night Cooling
© 2015 Glumac
Post Occupancy Performance Review
© 2015 Glumac
© 2015 Glumac
Case Study #3 – Vestas
© 2015 Glumac
Case Study #3 – Vestas
© 2015 Glumac
Case Study #3 – Vestas
© 2015 Glumac
Case Study #3 – Vestas
© 2015 Glumac
Office Building Performance
VAV DOAS
General Contractor’s Perspective
Steve Clem
Agenda
• Key Subcontractor Selection Process
• Seismic Upgrades • Historical Status • Underfloor Air • Electrochromatic
Glazing
Agenda
• Key Subcontractor Selection Process
• Seismic Upgrades • Historical Status • Underfloor Air • Electrochromatic
Glazing
Key Subcontractor Selection Who? Why? How? When? • Mechanical • Electrical
agenda
• Key Subcontractor Selection Process
• Seismic Upgrades • Historical Status • Underfloor Air • Electrochromatic
Glazing
• Necessary evil (with apologies to kpff)
• Limit cost to spend elsewhere
• Demo/shoring may cost more than concrete
• Use structural elements as architectural, thermal, and other solutions
Top down, bottom up
Agenda
• Key Subcontractor Selection Process
• Seismic Upgrades • Historical Status • Underfloor Air • Electrochromatic
Glazing
• Exterior façade • Windows • Penthouse size/orientation • Interiors (surprise!)
Assessment
Agenda
• Key Subcontractor Selection Process
• Seismic Upgrades • Historical Status • Underfloor Air • Electrochromatic
Glazing
• Why underfloor air • Scheduling/logistics • Cleaning/sealing • Boxes and diffusers
(TI or C/S?) • Zones and leakage • Toilet rooms, etc • Combined with VRF
Agenda
• Key Subcontractor Selection Process
• Seismic Upgrades • Historical Status • Underfloor Air • Electrochromatic
Glazing
• Great technology (easy, clean, effective, controllable)
• Didn’t pencil, too expensive • No competitors then, but now there are
Thank you
Q & A Session
10-Minute Break
A R C H I T E C T U R E / I N T E R I O R S / U R B A N D E S I G N / I D E N T I T Y
DESIGN FOR VESTAS
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Layout Opportunities Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Water Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
D E S I G N C O N C E P T
T h e d e s i g n c e l e b r a t e t h e c o n t r a s t o f t h e h i s t o r i c t e x t u r a l
f a b r i c o f t h e b u i l d i n g a g a i n s t t h e s l e e k a n d m o d e r n w o r k i n g
e n v i r o n m e n t
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Atrium Concept Layout Opportunities Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
C H A L L E N G E S • B u i l d i n g i s 2 0 0 ’ b y 2 0 0 ’ –
F u l l C i t y B l o c k
• N o l i g h t p e n e t r a t i o n t o c e n t e r o f b u i l d i n g
• B u i l d i n g o n N a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c R e g i s t e r
• I n t e r i o r R e n o v a t i o n t o b e a p p r o v e d t h r u H i s t o r i c r e v i e w
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Atrium Concept
Natural light to core Connects all Floors
visually Increased collaboration
Layout Opportunities Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
A T R I U M C O N C E P T N o n a t u r a l l i g h t a t c e n t e r o f b u i l d i n g
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
A T R I U M C O N C E P T D i s c o v e r y o f p o t e n t i a l s o n s i t e
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
A T R I U M C O N C E P T
O v e r l a p p i n g a t r i u m
c u t - o u t s o n e a c h f l o o r f l o o d s t h e b u i l d i n g w i t h
f i l t e r e d n a t u r a l l i g h t
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
A T R I U M C O N C E P T
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Atrium Concept Layout Opportunities
Strategic Wall Layout Transparency Views Maximize Daylighting Connectivity/Collaboration
Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
S T A R T E G I C W A L L L A Y O U T
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
G L A Z I N G - T R A N S P A R E N C Y
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
V I E W S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
D A Y L I G H T P E N E T R A T I O N
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
C O N N E C T I V I T Y - C O L L A B O R A T I O N
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Atrium Concept Layout Opportunities Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
L I G H T I N G A P P R O A C H
• M a x i m i z e d a y l i g h t i n g w i t h s k y l i g h t s a n d a t r i u m
• S o l i d w a l l s p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o e x t e r i o r w i n d o w s
• L o w l i g h t i n g p o w e r d e n s i t y - 0 . 5 4 w a t t s / S . F .
• T a s k l i g h t i n g a t w o r k a r e a s a s n e e d e d
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Atrium Concept Layout Opportunities Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
M A T E R I A L E F F I C I E N C Y A P P R O A C H
• C o n s t r u c t i o n w a s t e d i v e r t e d – 9 5 %
• 7 9 % o f w o o d – F S C ( C e r t i f i e d S u s t a i n a b l y H a r v e s t e d W o o d )
• 2 0 % r e c y c l e d c o n t e n t i n m a t e r i a l s
• 1 0 % r e g i o n a l m a t e r i a l s
• C e i l i n g s l e f t a s e x p o s e d c o n c r e t e
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
Design Concept Challenges Atrium Concept Layout Opportunities Lighting Approach Material Efficiency Approach Indoor Environment Approach
W O R K P L A C E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
I N D O O R E N V I R O N M E N T A P P R O A C H
• H e a l t h y w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t – p r o d u c t i v e a n d c o m f o r t a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t
• O p e r a b l e w i n d o w s
• L o w e m i t t i n g p a i n t s , a d h e s i v e s , a n d f i n i s h e s
0 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 5
T H A N K Y O U
Meier & Frank Results
Natural Gas
2013 - $10,413 2014 - $12,615 Projected Building Cost: $30,028
Water
2013 - $20,109 2014 - $16,287 Projected Building Cost: $90,990
Solar 2013 - $10,769 2014 - $11,332
Electricity
2013 - $129,086 2014 - $110,755 Projected Building Cost: $310,841
Q & A Session
Upcoming Trainings and Events • March 17th – Solar Design Training (AT
CAPACITY)
• June 4th – Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero
• August 6th – Commercial Building Design & Occupant Engagement (tentative date)
• October 2015 – Advance Envelope Design (tentative date)
Thank You Updating History: Deep Retrofits for Historic Projects
March 12th, 2015