1

US Conference of Mayors

Green buildings and Climate ChangeJuly 27, 2006

Greg Kats

2

Where LEED fitsGreen Building Markets

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Green Standards

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f M

arke

t A

ttai

nin

g

Re

gu

latio

ns

LawBreakers

Typical PracticeThe Majority

75%

LEEDers25%

InovatorsRiskTakers

Certified

Gold

Silver

Platinum

3

General Service Administration study of 5 green building standards

Sustainable Building Rating System Summary July, 2006

1) LEED2) BREEAM3) GBTool4) CASBEE5) Green Globes

Reasons why LEED different, strongly preferred by GSA1) Covers all project types2) Tracks quantifiable aspects of sustainable design and building

performance3) Trained professionals verify LEED4) Well defined system for incorporating updates: consensus -based5) Most widely used rating system

4

LEEDTM Point DistributionLEEDTM Point Distribution

Water

Efficiency

8%Energy &

Atmosphere

27%

Materials &

Resources

20%

Sustainable

Sites

22%

Indoor

Environmental

Quality

23%

Five LEED credit categories

5

BofA Headquarters

6

Greening Affordable Housing

7000 units of efficient, green affordable housing in 2 yearsPartners Include:

Enterprise Community PartnersFannie MaeJPMorgan ChaseBofACitibankAIANRDC

See: www.greencommunitiesonline.org/about-partners.asp

Plaza Appts., San Francisco

7

Productivity Gains from High Performance Lighting Systems

Productivity Gains from Implementation of High Performance Lighting Systems

13.2%

6%

3.2% 3%

26.1%

8.5%

6%

3%2%

0.7%1.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

PP&L / Romm &Browning 1994

Control DataCorp. / NLB

1988

Kuller & Laike1998 (controlled

experiment)

San DiegoFederal Building& Courthouse /

NLB 2002

Katzev 1992(controlled

experiment)

Xerox Corp. /Hedge et al.

1995

Reno PostOffice / Romm

1999

Xerox Corp. /Hedge et al.

1995

ConnecticutGeneral

Insurance /Barnaby 1980

ConnecticutGeneral

Insurance /Barnaby 1980

Boyce et al.1997 (controlled

experiment)

% Im

pro

vem

ent T8/T5 lamps, electronic ballasts, and/or high-

performance fixtures

Indirect lighting fixtures

Increased light levels

Daylight simulating

skylight

CB

PD

/ A

BS

IC B

IDS

™ 2

005

Median 3.2%

Source: Carnegie Mellon University Center for Building Performance, 2005

8

Health Gains from Improved Indoor Air Quality

87.3%flu

67.0%SBS

46.0%respiratory

35.0%SBS

33.6%SBS

33.0%SBS

20.0%respiratory

23.5%headache 20.0%

headache

72.5%asthma

15.0%colds

85.0%SBS

61.5%asthma,allergies

47.0%SBS

23.6%asthma

21.4%asthma,mucosal

13.5%bronchial(asthma)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Drinka et al1996

Jaakkola &Miettinen

1995

Brundage etal 1988

Fisk &Rosenfeld

1997

Bourbeau etal 1997

Sundell 1996 Fisk &Rosenfeld

1997

Kaczmarczyket al 2002

Menzies 1997 Cox-Ganseret al (NIOSH)

2005

Husman et al/ National

Public HealthInstitute 2002

BeijingResidences /Liu et al 1996

AustralianResidences /Garrett et al

1996

Wargocki1998

Wieslander etal 1997

Jaakkola et al1994

OsloResidences /Jaakkola et al

1999

% Im

prov

emen

t/red

uctio

n in

sym

ptom

s

Moisture control

Individual control / task air

Increased outside air Pollutant source control

Average 41.5%

CB

PD

/ A

BS

IC B

IDS

™ 2

005

Source: Carnegie Mellon University Center for Building Performance, 2005

9

Energy Efficiency Plus Health & Learning Benefits of Green Schools

33% energy efficiency improvement

over conventional design

plus

Enhanced Indoor Air Quality:

Increased Learning, Productivity & Performance (3%)

Increased Future Earnings of Students (1.4%)

Reduced Asthma (25%)

Reduced Colds and Flu (15%)

Reduced Teacher Turnover (3%)

10

Third Creek Elementary School (NC)

800 students moved from 2 older schools in 2002Same students and teachers

3 years prior to move 60% of students on grade level in math and reading2 years post-move 80% on grade

levelNo other changes

11

Energy $14

Emissions $1

Water & Wastewater $1

Increased Earnings $37

Asthma Reduction $4

Teacher Retention $4

Employment Impact $3

TOTAL $68

Costs of Green Design $4

NET FINANCIAL BENEFITS $60-$70

The Financial Benefits of Green School Design ($/ft2)

12

Benefits not Quantified

• Reduced Teacher Sick Days• Heat Island Reduction• Lower Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs• Enhancement of generating system reliability and

improved power quality • Insurance and risk related benefits • Improving Equity and Addressing Spiritual Values • Educational enrichment as an aspect of greener,

healthier facilities

13

The green building insurance linkEnergy & Atmosphere

ProfessionalLiability

GeneralLiability

BusinessInterruption

Property

LiabilityHealth

InsuranceLife

Insurance

Prereq 1Fundamental Building Systems

Commissioning (Required) + + + +

Prereq 2Minimum Energy Performance

(Required) +/- + + +/- +

Prereq 3CFC Reduction in HVAC&R

Equipment (Required) +

Credit 1.1Optimize Energy Performance, 20%

New / 10% Existing (2 points) +/- + + +/- + +

Credit 1.2Optimize Energy Performance, 30%

New / 20% Existing (2 points) +/- + + +/- + +

Credit 1.3Optimize Energy Performance, 40%

New / 30% Existing (2 points) +/- + + +/- + +

Credit 1.4Optimize Energy Performance, 50%

New / 40% Existing (2 points) +/- + + +/- + +

Credit 1.5Optimize Energy Performance, 60%

New / 50% Existing (2 points) +/- + + +/- + +

Credit 2.1 Renewable Energy, 5% (1 point) - + +

14

15

16

Even if we Stop CO2 Emissions Now,

Stabilization will Require Several 100 Years

There is a fundamental asymmetry between the time scales that the climate system reacts to increases in greenhouse gases and the time scales to recover from such increases.

17

New World Trade Center

Buildings all LEED

• Security• Global

Warming• Choice of

Standard

18

LEED and the 2030 Challenge

• Ashrae 90.1

• Minimum energy efficiency

• Green Power

• Location

• Leveraging USGBC/LEED and 30,000 LEED Accredited Professionals

19

Total Electricity Use, per capita, 1960 - 2001

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,0001

96

0

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

KW

h

12,000

8,000

7,000

California

U.S.

kWh

20

Ice-Bear™ Cooling Energy Storage

Typical home or business application

• Eliminates ~9kW of on-peak demand

• Stores ~ 50kW-hr of off-peak energy

• Shifts 93% of consumption to off-peak

• Saves annual site energy (kW-hours) 010% to 25% (in typical application)

• 110 units cut ~1MW of on-peak demand and ~1GW-hour of on-peak energy

21

Way Station

• Annual Energy Cost

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

fuel kWh Demand Total

$ / f

t²Way - ANNUAL ENERGY COST

Reference Case Low-Energy Case

0.143

0.050

0.728

0.221

0.615

0.186

1.486

0.457

$1.49 $.46

22

Example: Cool and Standard Color-Matched Concrete Tiles

• Can increase solar reflectance by up to 0.5• Gain greatest for dark colors

cool

standard

∆R=0.37 ∆R=0.29∆R=0.15∆R=0.23∆R=0.26 ∆R=0.29

CourtesyAmericanRooftile

Coatings

23

Reflective Pavements are Cooler

• Fresh asphaltAlbedo: 0.05Temperature: 123°F

• Aged asphaltAlbedo: 0.15Temperature: 115°F

• Prototype asphalt coating

Albedo: 0.51Temperature: 88°F

24

Cherokee: Fisherman’s Point - Illustrative

25

One LibertyPlaza

Liberty Property

Trust

26

27

Turner Construction Survey (09/04)

28

For more Information

• For copies of cost benefit reports and summary slides see: www.cap-e.com

• Re green affordable housing see: www.greencommunitiesonline.org

• Ice Energy: www.ice-energy.com• Alex Frangos, Industry Seeks New Green Building

Standard, Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2006. See http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20060331-frangos.html?refresh=on

• www.newresourcebank.com