From 1979 to 1986, the average square foot of a commercial building cut its energy use by about a third, according to the Energy Information Administration. But from 1986 to 1999, the last year of published data, the number stayed flat.
Policies play a role, too. Freihaut cites a 1913 Pennsylvania law, for example, that requires all public construction to offer separate bids for electrical, heating, ventilation and plumbing systems. At the time, the goal was to keep politicians from shunting all contracts to a few, well-connected firms and allow greater participation from the many small businesses that make up the construction industry.
Today, however, that law makes it hard to design a building whose pieces work together, rather than against each other. Engineers distrust architects; plumbers doubt construction teams. Each player overdesigns her part of the building, and the spiral continues.
Today, thousands of buildings in the Philadelphia area have been constructed according to this model. It's Freihaut's, and GPIC's, goal to point out a huge retrofit opportunity -- and to convince the building industry it can be lucrative to change the old way of doing business.
That's where Building 661 comes in: to do the convincing.
The new mission of Building 661
A crumbling, clammy reminder of the Philadelphia Navy Yard's past, Building 661 languishes a few blocks from GPIC's current offices. Once, it was where sailors and mechanics shot hoops, swam with their families, played locker-room hijinks.
Today, vandals have had their way with parts of it, dashing the walls with graffiti. The air sits utterly still, unperturbed by any humming machines or distant voices that would suggest human life. Upstairs, in what used to be the weight room, ceiling panels have been blown out by the cycle of winter chills and summer swoons. They droop; they gather in unkempt piles.
A ghost-hunting squad, or a demolition team, might salivate for a shot at Building 661. But first dibs go to GPIC, which has until 2015 to convert it into a tip-top green building -- and its headquarters.
The hope: If Building 661 can do it, anyone can.
At 30,000 square feet, it's the Joe Blow of commercial buildings. According to the EIA, 98 percent of America's commercial buildings are 100,000 square feet or smaller -- everything from fast-food joints to warehouses to office towers.
Building owners upbeat
Together, they account for about 10 percent of all energy consumed in the United States, representing one of the most distributed and toughest to crack sources of energy savings in the country.
If GPIC can crack the code in Philadelphia, the private sector is watching.
"This type of stuff is huge on our radar, as an organization," said Don Haas, who recently chaired the Philadelphia chapter of the Building Owners and Managers Association, or BOMA. "Their mission and how they're approaching it, I don't know, personally I'd be optimistic."
Historically, he said, energy efficiency has been pushed by salesmen -- by companies that stand to make money from the retrofit -- but GPIC could play the role of honest broker.
"I would be extremely hopeful that we would end up with something that was useful in a generic fashion, and not a manufacturer-specific type of product," Haas said.
Tomorrow: the makeover of Building 661.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThey are not going to change until you have a standard building code for every building. If they can give you a five million dollar building for one million; which one do you think they are going to choose?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery business I've worked in where I had any say at all in energy efficiency has shot down capital improvements that didn't have a very short payback period, say one year or less. And those weren't publicly traded companies trying to placate shareholders, which might be an even tougher sell. I applaud any education effort to replace short-sightedness with value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want more innovation, allow more diversity, not less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"From 1979 to 1986, the average square foot of a commercial building cut its energy use by about a third, according to the Energy Information Administration. But from 1986 to 1999, the last year of published data, the number stayed flat."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe boom in computer and Internet use can explain most of this, if not all. Just imagine how much more electricity all those computers, servers and other equipment added to the averag office in this time period consume, along with the added cooling necessary to cancel out all their waste heat...The fact that energy efficiency measures kept consumption flat is a testament to their efficacy. The fact that efficiency can basically cancel out the added comsumption of the IT Revolution is amazing! Imagine what is possible if we remove the policy and economic barriers to fully utilizing its potential!
The building code only has to state that energy use per sq foot (or square meter for the rational folks in the world...) has to be below a certain level and then allow for a diversity of methods to achieve the standard. I mean, it's in the national interest to lower energy consumption after all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWork has to start with city development. Commuting miles for work and basic needs will never make us an energy efficient society. Cities should be a place bringing people together not set apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRidiculous naive article...as usual government funded and 'out there' in la-la land
Building codes are full of energy related requirements. And, building management companies are VERY AWARE of energy costs.
This article is the equivalent of the government telling private enterprise 'to put customers first' as if it hasn't crossed anyone's mind in the last 100 years. Designers, architects, builders already focus on energy savings as it is a major feature in promoting their projects.
The major reason that buildings built between 1979 and 1986 cut usage by one-third is that we insulated them. The 1980's was the beginning of real energy codes in the US. The initial savings were huge with insulation and increased efficiency in U-values for windows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article suggests, but doesn't actually say, that we need to look at systems performance in our codes and construction. The overall performance of a system includes not just its initial construction but the long term maintenance and operation. The US is married to its long history of prescriptive building codes, which while easy to follow are not capable of dealing with complex systems. Most of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others use performance based codes today. Indeed the design of any really large building or high rise relies on system performance on a number of levels, from structural to mechanical. Our low rise prescriptive designed and built buildings suck resources, because cost is associated only with construction.
I totally agree. It comes down to a change in lifestyle and worldview. Live and work within a locally sustainable system. The broader economy is there for what the local cannot provide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo to save energy consumption in buildings we need universal health care! Make it possible for people to work where they want and not just so that they can have health care. Obviously, just one of the other many 'job killing' regulations that would be required.
The people who build the buildings don't pay the energy bills, the tenants do. The owners of the building usually don't pay the energy bills either. Consequently, the people who can benefit the most from energy efficiency improvements, tenants, have little if any ability to enact efficiency improvements on their landlord's property. At the same time, building owners have little incentive to enact efficiency improvements because they will see little, if any, return on their investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are other factors at work on the market besides the price signal.
Baloney that construction a building is not energy conservation oriented. Projects are commissioned on their merits which include operating costs (fuel efficiency). This is at EVERY STAGE of construction from the foundation depth to window types to wall construction, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of the 'USA' is silly. There are tens of thousands of builders all competing in their unique markets and doing their best to meet client needs. Operating costs are front and center.
Any handy place where can I find descriptions of these prescriptive codes in other countries, and the results they are getting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA good place to start would be the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC) from their site you can find links to all countries using performance codes and reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.irccbuildingregulations.org