Renewable Energy Consumption Trends United States, 1995-2006

Source: Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review March 2007

060504030201009998979695

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Quadrillion BTU

Hydro-Electric PowerBiomassOther

Electric PowerTransportation

IndustrialCommercial

Residential

5

4

3

2

1

0

Quadrillion BTU

U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption By Sector, 2006

Source: Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review March 2007

0.50.1

1.6

0.5

3.9

Renewable EnergyNuclear Electric Power

Fossil Fuels

100

80

60

40

20

0

Quadrillion BTU

U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption Compared with Other Resources, 2006

Source: Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review March 2007

85.4

8.2 6.5

U.S. Cumulative Capacity Additions by Fuel Type

Source: National Commission on Energy Policy

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Renewable Energy Sources

Source: Energy Information Administration

Gas, 20.90%

Nuclear, 6.50%

Renewables,

13.10%Coal, 25.10%

Non-Renew.

Waste, 0.20%

Oil, 34.30%

Fuel Shares of World Total PrimaryEnergy Supply 2004

Source: International Energy Agency

Evolution ofWorld Total Primary Energy Supply By Fuel, 1971-2004

Source: International Energy Agency

Million Tons of Oil Equivalent

20102005

10

8

6

4

2

0

Percent

Green Market Value As a Percentage of Total Construction, 2005 vs. 2010 (Projected)

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction

2%

5 - 10%

2010 Projections of Green Market Size US$ Billions

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction

2%

5 - 10%Market Low End High End

Residential 19 38

Non-Residnetial 10.2 20.5

Total 29.2 58.5

Projections

TOTO Ltd.

• World headquarters, Kitakyushu, Japan’

• World’s largest plumbing fixture manufacturer inexcess of $4 billion US in annual sales

• Stock traded on Tokyo Stock Exchange

TOTO is a Global Brand

JapanNo.1 share

KoreaNo.1 share

ChinaNo.1 share

IndonesiaNo.1 share

ThailandNo.1 share

USAIncreasing share

CanadaIncreasing share

VietnamIncreasing share

IndiaIncreasing share

Middle EastIncreasing share

Singapore/Malaysia/PhilippineIncreasing share

South AmericaIncreasing share

TOTO USA, Inc.

• Established 1990 in Torrance, CA (zero sales)

• 2006 sales: $225 million

• 2007 Sales projection: $250 million

• Currently the number three US full-line plumbingfixture manufacturer

• Currently the fastest growing major plumbing fixturemanufacturer in the US

TOTO Growth Since 2003

Sales ($=Million)

132

170

200

226

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006

TOTO Innovations in Technology:

Computer Modeling and Optimization

Of Hydraulic Performance

Surface of typical glazed china undermagnification

Viewed under atomic force microscopy

Surface of typical glazed china under magnificationAfter 2 to 3 years of use

Dirt particles may be

only microns in size

1/10th of 1 mm

Surface of Super Smooth Glazing

Smooth to the nanometer level

1/10th of 1

mm

Super flat surface remains unaffected over time

Smooth to the nanometer level

1/10th of 1 mm

TOTO Innovations in Technology:SanaGloss Super Smooth Glaze

1/10th of 1 mm

TOTO Innovations in Technology:

EcoPower Self-Generating Faucet

Water passing throughturbine generates power,which is sent to capacitorsand stored for next use.

Capacitors store powerto activate Solenoidcontrolling water flow.

Solenoid opens sendingwater to the faucet.

Faucet senses usersneed for water flow.

TOTO Innovations in Technology

Testing & Validation of Performance

Toilet paper sheets

(double type)

10

Sinking waste

500g

Floating Waste

Granule type waste

Toilet paper sheets

(single type)

Ink test

Granule

Mix Media

TRAPWAY

SIZE

Big Diameter

15

50

TOTO

Standard

ANSI

Standard

0

400g

TOTO

Standard

ANSI

Standard

AS FLOWISE

MINIMUM

STANDARD

2-1/2"

TOTO HET

KOHLER

CIMARRON HET

0

0

0

Competitor x

Competitor y

TOTO Innovations in Technology

Washlets & Neorest Toilets

Corporate/Industry

TOTO U.S.A. is the North American division of TOTO, Ltd., the world’s

largest plumbing products manufacturer. Toto has demonstrated

leadership and innovation in water efficiency through their product

development, manufacturing processes, and advocacy. TOTO pioneered

the development of the first American 1.6 gpf toilet prior to the 1992

legislation requiring it. TOTO has been at the forefront of high efficiency

toilet (1.28 gpf) development as well. Additionally, TOTO has implemented

a water recycling program in their manufacturing facility that reduces water

use by 18% and has been an active promoter of water efficient products by

working with national organizations and offering educational tours of their

manufacturing plant.

Understanding Value

• Ideas of value change with time

• More than just reduced operating costs

• Image is important

Owner-Occupiers Have aDirect Connection to Building Performance24

• In the mid ninetiesnearly all “green”buildings wereowner occupied

• Owners could seevalue of improvedwork environmentas well as reducedenergy costs

High degree of daylight

User control of temperature

Operable windows

Flexible workspace

Good air quality

Good acoustics

The Effective Work Environment

The Developer Community

• Initially cautious due toperceived extra cost

• Now recognizing value asopposed to cost

• Tenants start to demand betterspace

• Hines helps develop LEED forCore & Shell

• All new Hines commercialoffices will be LEED Silver

The Finance Sector

• Goldman Sachs will invest $1 billion inrenewable energy and conservation.

• They and other financial groups arebroadening the application of social andenvironmental factors into investmentand loan operations

Today’sBusinessPractices

• Fossil fueldependence

• Waste in many forms

• Products that don’taccount for full coststo society

• Unintended negativeconsequences for ourcustomers andbusiness

FROM

QuickWins

< 1yr

InnovationProjects

1 – 4 yrs

Big GameChange

Ongoing

Sustainable Value Networks

Sustainable Pathway

Using competitive forces to create a race to the top

SustainableBusinessPractices

• Use 100% renewableenergy

• Produce zero waste

• Sell products thatsustain our resourcesand environment

• A win for society anda win for business

TO

Roadmap to Sustainability

Show me the Evidence

Customers Prefer Green• http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/

CalPERS, Sacramento – LEED Silver

Heiffer HQ, Little Rock, AR

• 54% Below

• ASHRAE 90.1 1999

Druk White Lotus School, Ladakh, Northern India

http://associates.global.arup.com/AA_Internet/DrukWhiteLotusSchool/Home.htm

Druk White Lotus School,Ladakh, Northern India

• Flexible high quality teachingspaces;

• Self regulating site – water cycleand waste management;

• Appropriate building technologies;

• No imported energy;

• Maximised passive and activesolar potential;

• Sustainable material resource;

• Seismic performance ofstructures;

• Solar assisted ventilated improvedpit (VIP) latrines.

Strategies for Green Buildings

• Climate responsive

• Operable windows

• Daylight

• Occupant controls

• Intelligent facades

• 20% energy savings easy, >50% reduction demandsintegrated design

Stanford E&E

Design for Passive Systems

Integrated Design

• Designing the Atriumto act as a driver fornatural ventilation

• Use both intuition andcomputational fluiddynamics

Design for Passive Design Integrated Design – Refining Daylighting Strategies

Refining theAtriumdaylightingusing lightingsimulationprograms

• 525 Golden Gate

Low Energy in an Urban Context

Existing 1155 Market (22.0 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Title 24 Baseline (15.7 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Improved Envelope 20% (12.5 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Daylighting 35% (10.2 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Improved Systems 56% (6.9 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Chilled Ceilings 57% (6.8 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Natural Ventilation 59% (6.4 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Plug Load Reduction 61% (6.1 kW-hr/sqft/yr)

Energy Consumption AnalysisAnnual Energy Comparison

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

Existing Bldg T-24 Baseline Improved Envel Daylighting Improved

Systems

Chilled Ceilings Natural Vent Reduced Plug

Loads

Energy Model

An

nu

al E

nerg

y U

se (

kW

h/y

ear)

Cities

• Take up 2% of land surface of Earth

• House 50% of World’s population

• Consume 75% of resources

• Produce 75% of pollution

• Parasite on the World?

or

• Key to sustainable living?

2007 – the turning point

World Population

• 1950: 29% urban / 71% rural

• 1990: 43% urban / 57% rural

• 2030: 61% urban / 39% rural

Source: Population Division of the Department of

Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations

Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The2003 Revision

• 180,000 people added to theurban population every day

TREASURE ISLANDTREASURE ISLANDA New San Francisco NeighborhoodA New San Francisco Neighborhood

Incorporating Sustainability intoTreasure Island: A Triple Bottom Line Approach

Environmental Stewardship: The community is designed to preserve

natural resources, reduce environmental impacts and coexist peacefully with

the natural setting.

Social Benefits: Creating a vibrant, compact, livable community and

fostering a strong sense of place.

Economic Vitality: Providing housing choices for different income levels,

embracing resource efficient strategies that will reduce basic household

expenditures, and spurring job growth and new small businesses.

Treasure Island Sustainability Strategies

Sustainabilityachievements

Transportationalternatives

Urban village

Harmonizationwith the

elements

Energystrategy

Waterconservationand recycling

Landscapingand open

space

WasteReduction

Environ-mentallyfriendly

materials

Affordablehousing

Sustainabilityeducation and

public art

CommunityGarden

28%

15%

4%20%

32%

1% Domestic

Commercial and

Public

Industrial Buildings

Industrial Process

Transport

Agriculture

UK CO2 emissions 2000 (Source:ODPM)

Buildings: Responsible for 50% UK carbon emissions

Green building – Mainstream? Exemplar?

EU: Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

UK: Planning and Building Regulations

Codelevel 6

Codelevel 4

Codelevel 3

Equivalent carbonstandard in code

Zerocarbon

44%25%Improvement ascompared to Part L2006

201620132010Date

The path to zero carbon homes

Renewable energy generating energy for all heating andelectric use in the home

Zero carbon home6

Offsetting equivalent emissions as regulated by Part L(i.e all emissions from space and water heating, plus asmall amount of electric for pumps and fans)

100%5

Best practice fabric standards plus significant renewableenergy generation.

44%4

Likely to require some renewable generation. Standardsequivalent to current Energy Saving Trust best practice.

25%3

Possible using efficiency measures alone (Air tightness3 – 5m3/hr/m2), beyond this point renewables likely to bemore cost effective than further fabric improvements.

18%2

Achievable through best practice U value specification.Reasonable air tightness, minimizing thermal bridges

10%1

ImplicationsPercentageImprovement over

Part L 2006

Level

Micro-Generation Promoters

Tax incentives

Stamp duty reductions

Reverse purchase ofelectricity

Sustainable Energy Act

Industry GrantsBuilding regulations

(zero CO2)

Council tax rebatesEnergy White PaperEU buildings regulations

Low Carbon BuildingProgram

Climate Change BillSpring council decision

GRANTSACTS OF PARLIAMENTSEU REGULATIONS

Micro generation financial incentives?

• UK: Low Carbon Building Programme: grants for renewableenergy technologies for all sectors as long as your buildingis energy efficient.

• Germany: ‘100,000 solar roofs programme’ (now ended)

• Spain, Italy, Germany: Feed-in tariff for electricity generatedfrom renewables: could more than 2.5x more than standardelectricity. Pay-back time decreases.

• France: 70-95% capital grants if off grid (for PV and wind)

• Germany: Grants for biomass boilers, ground source heatingsystems

• Most: tax breaks for renewable energy technologies

BREEAM Schemes and Assessment Types

Offices

Retail

Schools

EcoHomes

Industrial

Bespoke

• Management

• Health & Well

being

• Energy

• Transport

• Water

• Materials

• Land Use

• Ecology

• Pollution

BREEAMRating

BREEAM Methodology

Environmental Performance

Num

bers

of

build

ings

Reg

ula

tory

min

imu

m

High Quality Sector

Exemplars

BREEAM

Additional costs to achievelow or zero carbon housing

e Biomass CHP jBiomass communal

heating + large wind

kBiomass CHP (resi

only)

5-10% aBiomass communal

heating + micro wind f

Biomass communal

heating + small windh

Biomass CHP

maximum + small

wind

nBiomass CHP (resi

+ non-resi heat load)

10-15% bPV + biomass

communal heatingg

PV + biomass

communal heating l

PV + biomass

communal heating

15-20% cPV + communal

GSHP heatingi

Biomass CHP

maximum + PVo

Biomass communal

heating + large wind

+ PV

>25% d

Biomass communal

heating + max PV +

small wind

100% Regulated

Emissions100% Total Emissions

100% Regulated

Emissions***

%

increase

in build

cost

2.5-5%

Residential Case Studies: Extra Build Cost for Carbon Neutrality from Best Practice 2006

CS3: Urban extension, mixed use (2000

dwellings)

100% Regulated

Emissions100% Total Emissions100% Total Emissions

CS1: City Infill (30 dwellings) CS2: Market town (300 dwellings)

Base build cost: £923 per m2 Base build cost: £903 per m2 Base build cost: £903 per m2

Comparison of £/tonne CO2 saved

£0

£2,000

£4,000

£6,000

£8,000

£10,000

£12,000

£14,000

£16,000

PV Domestic

(1-3kWp)

SHW

Domestic

(250kW -

2MW)

(2-50kW) Building

Mounted

Micro (1-

2kW)

(50-250kW) (100-500kW) (1-5MW) Small

Biomass (50-

500kWe)

Large

Biomass

(2MWe+)

Communal

GSHP

£/t

on

ne

CO

2 s

av

ed

pe

r y

ea

r

2006

2011

2020

WIND

Biomass district

heating incl. cost

of heat main

Biomass CHP

incl. cost of heat

mainCF=10%

CF=10%

CF=15%

CF=20%

CF= capacity factor

All of these communal options assume that

plant sized to meet baseload with gas boilers

for back up

Embodied Energy and CO2

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years

Cu

mu

lati

ve

To

nn

es

CO

2 E

mit

ted

Typical House

Energy efficient house

Energy efficient house + SWH

Energy efficient house + SWH + PV

"Carbon Neutral Home", Energy efficient house +SWH + PV + Swift Wind Turbine

Embodied

CO2 CO2 break even point for carbon neutral

home vs. 2006 Part L house

Four Step Carbon Emission Reduction Strategy

Step 1: Minimise demand for heating, cooling, lighting:Low U-valuesGood airtightnessSolar shadingNatural light

Step 2: Use efficient systems to meet loads:Heat recoveryVariable speed drives on pumps and fansChilled BeamsLighting control systemsCombined Heat and Power

Step 3: Use renewable energy:Ground SourceBore holesPhotovoltaics

Step 4: Future Proofing

Carb

on

im

pact

Base building

Route to low carbon: Passiv Haus standard

Route to low carbon: District heating networks?

Green building:Adnam’s Brewery Distribution Centre

Green Building: British Antarctic Survey - Halley VI

Green Buildings: Harlow North

Stephen’s Croft

40MW

Lockerbie,

Scotland.

25,3031.9£3,855,29969,976,264£7,511,794Total

Annual CO2

saving(tonnes)

SimplePayback(years)

Annual costsaving

Annual Energysaving (kWh)

Capital costOpportunity

‘Greening’ existing buildings:

Carbon management for major retailer

Good house keeping: lighting, escalators, air handling units: 10% savings

Los Angeles Community College District’sGreen Building Policy

How the Largest Public CommunityCollege system in the US developed a

policy to save money and save theenvironment

LACCD: 9 colleges, 880 sq. miles

• Governed by a 7-member elected part-time Boardof Trustees

• CEO = Chancellor

• 9 college presidents, 27 VPs (3 per college)

• Approx. 8000 employees

Step One: Money to Build and Improve

• California public education is heavily dependenton voter approval for financial resources

• LACCD voters pass a bond to build/rebuild thecolleges in April 2001: $1.45 billion

May 2001

• A trustee asks: “Are we going to use droughttolerant landscaping and save water? Are wegoing to use solar power and save electricity?”

• The concept of “saving energy” and “reducingfuture costs” enters the dialogue

Absence of Examples

• At the beginning, the only example of greenbuilding we had was the concept of waterlessurinals

• This did not exactly get us off to a thrilling start forour policy

Public Policy-Making: Democracyin Action

• LACCD operates under state law requiring “SharedGovernance” i.e. faculty and staff input to decision-making

• The elected Board of Trustees must maintain goodinternal communications / relations as well as get goodPR and get re-elected

Getting Folks onBoard for Green Building: Quite a Challenge

• “How much more will it cost?”

• “How many buildings won’t get built?”

• “Will it slow down the building program?”

• These are just some of the initial concerns expressedby College Presidents, faculty and staff.

Bringing in the External Actors:Summer 2001 – Spring 2002

• Sierra Club, Global Green, Greenpeace, and otherenvironmental groups begin discussions with trustees

• Close coordination is required between policymakersand external support groups

• Public hearings are held; 300 people come to supporta green building policy (Nov 2001)

Resistance and Re-education:2001-2002

Those who objected based on cost needed to beeducated about “life cycle costs” and other newconcepts about building

Many outside experts give testimony and provide data:Coalition for Clean Air, City of Los Angeles pro-sustainability staff, various public and private utilities,US Green Building Council, and many more

Moving towards Policy

Board of Trustees hold committee meetings and publichearings from Fall 2001 through Spring 2002

Greenpeace mobilizes students

on all 9 campuses

Letters are received from numerous state and localelected officials supporting a green building policy(carefully coordinated by external allies)

Details, details,the Devil is in the Details!

• How to achieve measurable goals of energy savings,long term cost savings, and environmentalimprovement?

• LACCD learns to speak “LEED” lingo

• All architects and engineers must have a LEED trainedstaff member in order to get a contract

Policy Passes Board March 2002

• Hundreds of supporters applauded when the Boardunanimously passed a detailed

Green Building policy

• Local media covered the process with moderatelyfavorable articles

• LACCD began to mentor others, including CaliforniaState University and University of California studentactivists

Other entities jointhe Green Building movement 2002 -

• After several years of planning, the City of Los Angelesofficially passes a Green building policy one month afterLACCD

• LA Unified School District concretizes its version, CHPS (agreen building plan for K-12)

• CSU Trustees pass a policy for 23 campuses of the CSUsystem (2004)

• Gov Schwarzenegger announces Executive Order S-20-04requiring LEED standards

• for state buildings (Dec 2004)

Awards and Recognitions

• Global Green and Mikael Gorbachev honor LACCD(March 2004)

• Southern Calif Gas Company honors LACCD

(Oct 2004)

• The Climate Group (UK) recognizes LACCD as a LowCarbon Leader (June 2005)

• LACCD gets CA State Flex Your Power award

(June 2006)

Marketplace Changes Help Everyone

• Since LACCD passed its policy, hundreds of Southern Califarchitects, designers and other building experts haveobtained LEED certification

• The number of solar power contractors and other “greenbuilding” providers has grown enormously

• Every RFP/RFQ LACCD announces includes a requirementfor green building skills or commitments

Challenges Ahead forLACCD Green Building Program

• astronomical construction cost increases due toChina’s growth, New Orleans reconstruction, war inIraq, etc.

• shortage of skilled personnel (due to vast public worksprograms in the region)

• shortage of supplies, such as cement (but new optionsare being developed)

• re-educating employees to enjoy and properlyimplement green building (i.e. lower thermostats, turnoff lights, and enjoy those waterless urinals!)

Sustainable Development Curriculum

• Green Buildings on different Campuses with basic focus on technology and learning from actual projects

• Courses offered as certificated, licenses and advanced degrees

• Career opportunities and training for jobs, new companies and advanced degrees

• Collaborate with unions, private businesses, public, government andnon-profit sectors

• Provide actual experiences on campus through building programs

• Sustainable Development Curriculum: solar, wind, geothermal, hybrid technologies, economics, etc as well as new businesses, life cycle accounting, investment, operations andmaintenance

•Impact on Climate Change -- the solutions fro global warming are available today for immediate implementation

Big Question / The Bottom Line

• Committed To Building Sustainably

• $2.2 Billion and 40 plus new buildings

• No more staff for cleaning

• No new State money for maintenance

• New buildings mean more energy cost

• How do we clean, maintain, and power 3 million squarefeet of new buildings?

Answer

1. Technology – Computer Assisted FacilitiesManagement software will allow existing staff to bemore productive

2. Lower Maintenance Cost - Sustainable BuildingsRequire Less Maintenance

3. Eliminate Energy Costs – Self-Generate all energyneeds, go off the grid, save roughly $ 9 million peryear district wide