Moving Forward - National Institute of Building Sciences

National Institute of

BUILDING SCIENCES

Moving Forward: In-Depth Findings and Recommendations from the Consultative Council

An Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment

December 2012

2

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES – 2012 CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL REPORT

Moving Forward: Findings and Recommendations from the Consultative Council Introduction

B

uildings and their related infrastructure protect communities from harm; they serve as the site of most Americans’ daily activities; and they play a prominent role in the nation’s economy, yet buildings often go unnoticed. Because buildings are not often the center of attention, policymakers and the public are not always aware of the needs and opportunities buildings present in meeting national goals. Despite the ubiquitous nature of these structures where the people of the United States live, work, play and learn, no comprehensive national policy exists to help participants in the building industry identify national priorities and promote improvements across the U.S. building stock. This year, the Consultative Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, expanding on the recommendations made in its two preceding reports, offers specific recommendations, implementable in the near term, which can serve as the basis for a national buildings policy. Through these recommendations and the implementation and outreach efforts that follow, the Consultative Council—as a representative council of the nation’s building community—offers a pathway toward high-performance buildings.

In 2012, six Topical Committees developed recommendations in the following areas identified in prior reports: • Defining High Performance and Common Metrics to Achieve It, • Codes and Standards Adoption and Enforcement, • Energy and Water Efficiency, • Existing Buildings, • Sustainability, and • Research. The Consultative Council, which includes leading organizations representing all aspects of the building industry, recognizes the importance of working with policymakers to realize the high-performance buildings and infrastructure possible in the 21st century. Through these efforts, members of the Council demonstrate their desire to advance the built environment and support the development of high-performance buildings and infrastructure.

Measuring Progress through Metrics and Benchmarking Defining High Performance and Common Metrics to Achieve It Many of the high-performance building attributes identified by Congress1 and referenced in the Whole Building Design Guide®2 can only be assessed subjectively because there is currently no science-based way to evaluate a building’s performance in these areas. Not only does the building industry need to understand how to evaluate the subjective criteria, it must establish metrics and methods for assessing and labeling when high-performance attributes are achieved, which may require subjective evaluation. Determining and reporting definitive building characteristics also requires additional metrics and methods. When evaluating the metrics to demonstrate achievement of high performance, evaluators should identify and consider: • All metrics associated with the attribute of interest; • The attribute’s level of importance or ranking in its use by the industry; • Whether the performance criteria would be best expressed using quantitative or qualitative metrics; and • Results of gap assessments (an analysis to identify where holes exist in the current process) on available technical resources.

Technical resources and metrics already exist for some performance attributes. However, in other cases, additional standards and research are needed to provide the appropriate guidance. To measure the achievement of high performance requires having a set of baseline metrics to measure against. In some cases, the baseline can be the level of performance arrived at through the current building code. In other cases, the baseline could reflect the current performance of an existing building. This baseline performance level and additional levels of higher performance would reference current standards and other criteria as identified in the establishment of the baseline. For levels above the baseline, evaluators could use stretch codes and standards or a percentage of improvement beyond the current baseline. To determine whole building performance and whether the building meets the overall requirements of high performance requires aggregation of each attribute or system score. Utilizing this methodology, right sizing of buildings (the ability to correctly size equipment, such as air conditioning, to the actual performance

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Title IV, Energy Savings in Buildings and Industry, Section 401, Definitions), definition of a “high performance building” is as follows: A building that integrates and optimizes on a life-cycle basis all major high-performance building attributes, including energy conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, cost-benefit, productivity, functionality and operational considerations. 2 The WBDG is a web-based portal that contains design, construction and facility management information and criteria required by the U.S. military and other federal agencies. http://www.wbdg.org. 1


requirements of the building) for the actual and anticipated occupancy will be just as important as right sizing mechanical equipment. The Consultative Council’s Defining High Performance and Common Metrics Topical Committee will work with the Institute’s High Performance Building Council and other relevant stakeholders to develop the list of initial metrics. Such an effort should eventually result in the development of a national database cataloging the various codes and standards that are needed. Throughout the building industry, a number of organizations and individuals are working to develop metrics for the various building attributes. To ensure effectiveness and allow a holistic understanding of building attributes, the Council recommends that such activities recognize those other efforts and coordinate where appropriate.

As demonstrated by this report and the number of other efforts in process (see Table 1), there is a valuable need for establishing a methodology to demonstrate achievement of high performance. The challenge lies in determining the relevant metrics, how to measure and express each of them and then how to consider them in the aggregate when evaluating or designating whole building performance. As illustrated above, a number of initiatives underway address the measurement and expression of one or more building performance attributes. However, more work is required on engaging all stakeholders to identify the metrics relevant to a particular aspect of high performance within the attributes, such as energy, resilience and indoor air quality, as well as how to measure and express them.

Table 1. Examples of Performance Metric Initiatives Underway • National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) on Energy Performance Metrics • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) • U.S. Department of Energy Whole Building Cost and Performance Measurement: Data Collection Protocol, • ASHRAE Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Energy Efficiency Standardization Coordination Collaborative (EESCC)

Adaptation of the Built Environment to Climate Change In recent years, people and communities across the country and internationally have been experiencing floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and temperature extremes at alarming rates and at magnitudes unseen in the past (see Figure 1). When members of the building industry designed and constructed the buildings in these communities, as well as much of the existing infrastructure that supports the built environment, they did not anticipate many of the challenges posed by these recent changes. The building industry is now designing, constructing and commissioning new infrastructure and buildings with an awareness of these effects, but the exact performance requirements and the real pressures that will be placed on them are largely unknown. Designers and scientists are questioning the adequacy of the present methodologies for determining design loads for buildings and infrastructure, many of which are based on historic thresholds, such as 100-year catastrophic events. The stronger impacts and increased frequency of hazards, most recently evidenced by the landfall of Hurricane Sandy in

the Northeast, warrants a re-examination of the traditional role mitigation plays in construction, and highlights the need to both adapt the existing built environment and enhance the future built environment to address such “super storm” events that have had no historic precedent.

3

4


Authoritative studies by climate scientists worldwide, including climate modeling and observations, indicate a changing climate that will continue to change throughout the 21st century. Its effects include: sea level rise and higher storm surges; higher average temperatures and more intense heat waves; more droughts and wildfires; more severe storms with high winds; and, in some instances, ice and snow, heavy precipitation and flooding. While the building industry and policymakers must tackle the human-linked causes of climate change, the effects of climate change are already beginning to occur and the built environment must adapt to such effects. Adapting the built environment to climate change requires the building industry to anticipate the effects occurring over the lives of facilities (50 to 100 or more years). These changes can impact: • Functional requirements for services (such as changes in population, settlement patterns, employment, commerce, economic resources and lifestyles), and availability and costs of resources (such as energy and water). • Functionality and resiliency of facilities located in changed environments and following extreme events (such as heat waves; wind, rain, snow and ice storms; droughts, floods and storm surges; and wildfires). While science-based predictions exist for climate changes (e.g., regional average annual temperatures and precipitation), no methodologies exist to date for predicting effects of climate change on the functional requirements of facilities or on the changed environments and extreme events for which such facilities should remain safe, functional and resilient. Developing and implementing such requirements necessitates a more diverse approach and measurement science than traditionally implemented by design professionals and the construction community. This is not a new problem. Historically, data about changed environments and extreme events has not been based on climate or weather models, but on statistics of historical records. With climate and weather changing, historical records no longer provide adequate predictions of future extremes. However, advancing climate/weather modeling capabilities in the future may provide useful predictions of changed environments and extreme events.

Appropriate agencies and organizations should perform the necessary research, development and dissemination to assist the industry in understanding and implementing adaptive practices. Such efforts must: • Define the changed environments and extreme events under which the design, construction, operation, maintenance and renovation of buildings and infrastructure should occur and develop the tools to assess the vulnerabilities of the built environment to such changes. • Produce guidance documents, following models such as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions, to illustrate how standards and practices for adapting the built environment facilitate an integrated response to hazards. • Work with all members of the building community through the codes and standards developing organizations, as they revise existing and develop new criteria to facilitate and expedite the development and implementation of practices, codes and standards that will guide the adaptation of the built environment to a changing climate. • Foster increased adoption and implementation of and compliance verification with codes and standards through all possible paths, including, but not limited to, laws and regulations, contracting and licensing, as well as incentive-based market-driven vehicles. • Prepare training and educational materials for continuing and post-secondary education programs for professionals and technicians. The building community must engage with climate and weather scientists to help identify the information required to adapt the built environment to climate change, and to develop the practices, standards, codes and guidelines needed by the private and public sectors for such adaptation. The building community, through organizations like the National Institute of Building Sciences and others, should participate with the U.S. Global Change Research Program.3 This program involves 13 federal agencies and prepares the National Climate Assessment (NCA).4

Regulation of the Built Environment Streamlining the Regulatory Process to Improve Effectiveness and Efficiency High-performance and sustainable buildings and infrastructure require the consideration and integration of numerous systems and practices, which are often regulated by different government entities using a number of different compliance verification processes. Regulatory efficiency and compliance with current and future construction codes and standards, as well as other government regulations, requires developing and implementing a streamlined system to support transparent, effective and efficient approaches that document and verify compliance. Regulatory streamlining strengthens both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the nation’s building regulatory system at each and every level of government.

3 4

http://www.globalchange.gov http://ncanet.usgcrp.gov/partners/resources

The economic recession of 2008-2011 resulted in an extreme strain on the capacity of state and local governments to provide timely and efficient, and in some cases, effective, administration and enforcement of adopted building codes and standards. However, even in the best of times, surveys conducted by the Alliance for Building Regulatory Reform in the Digital Age, in conjunction with The American Institute of Architects (AIA), the International Code Council (ICC) and Fiatech, have documented that regulatory streamlining and the application of information technology within the regulatory system could increase public safety while reducing by 40 to 70 percent the amount of time it takes to move a building through the permitting and construction approval


process to occupancy.5 Indeed, the surveys documented that the single practice of electronic permit processing can save the construction industry millions of dollars annually. At the national level, several different organizations are working on projects that provide new tools to improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of the building regulatory process. Such projects include: increasing the use of digital signatures and seals; wider adoption and use of criteria allowing replicable buildings; and the digital representation and use of codes. Other methods for ensuring compliance exist, along with formats for codes and standards that can foster increased compliance because they align better with alternative compliance methods.6 Successful regulatory streamlining efforts require the involvement of all stakeholders, both by identifying areas for streamlining and by finding and applying solutions that eliminate overlap,

duplication, inconsistencies and inefficiencies of the application of regulations, processes and procedures applied to the built environment. Good streamlining practices are those that extend beyond traditional building codes and standards areas, to include: environmental, zoning and land use, and even disaster preparedness and response. The Institute and other organizations should produce generally applicable guidelines for streamlining, and work with organizations, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Insurance Services Office (ISO)7, to recognize the value of a more efficient process and incorporate it into their evaluation criteria. Pioneering owners, insurers, communities and agencies should conduct pilot projects and publicize their case studies for emulation throughout the building community.

Compliance with Codes and Standards Conformity assessment (compliance) describes the processes used to demonstrate that a product, service, management system or body meets specified requirements, such as standards, codes, laws, regulations or other criteria. It encompasses all activities focused on ensuring achievement of a desired outcome. Evaluation approaches vary widely. With respect to buildings, conformity assessment includes all activities and tasks undertaken by any number of entities to ensure achievement of the provisions of adopted codes, standards and other criteria. Once a governmental body develops or adopts a code or standard, a range of activities occur to ensure the realization of the adopted provisions (e.g. compliance verification). Compliance is just as important as the development and adoption of codes and standards—flawed or inadequate verification processes rarely result in achievement of the intended performance goals. The value of compliance varies and is determined based on the consequences of non-compliance. For instance, a building code has multiple and varying requirements. (Clearly, the failure to properly install a fire-rated assembly or forgetting to leak test a natural gas service line has much more potential impact than being a few inches farther apart than is acceptable for duct hanger spacing.) The codes and standards development process in the United States is transparent and involves a diverse and balanced group of stakeholders from the regulated construction community. This diversity of involvement results in a willingness from the regulated community to comply; stakeholders have already had the opportunity to consider and address a variety of concerns and interests before the requirements are established. Addressing compliance requires regulators to consider the following questions in the context of the importance of complying with a specific provision. The criticality of compliance to a large degree dictates the consideration of these issues. • What criteria for compliance are required, in terms of scope, timeframe, stringency, importance and application to the building design, construction, commissioning and/or operations?

• • • • •

How are those criteria adopted and by whom? What is the format of the criteria and how are they presented? Who is responsible for compliance? Who validates that compliance has been achieved? What penalties or incentives can be levied to foster compliance?

With respect to buildings in the United States, many criteria exist—either individually or taken in the aggregate—that provide for health, safety and welfare as defined by codes and standards. Compliance with these criteria can take many forms, including requiring provision of some desired or required aspect of a product; involvement of a third-party process to verify the quality or performance of the product; and oversight by authorities as to the manufacture and shipment of the product. When consumers can readily assess the required aspect of the product, they can make their own assessment of compliance, thus eliminating the third-party process. In addition, stringency impacts the reality of and complexity associated with achieving compliance. Building scientists and codes and standards developers continue to evaluate and adjust strategies to meet the goals of safeguarding health, safety and welfare as needs change (manmade disasters, new technologies, environmental challenges, etc.) and available resources to support compliance verification are stretched. Given shrinking budgets, as well as a desire to improve the built environment, the building industry and regulatory community should identify ways to improve the current process, as well as look for alternative processes. Improvements in the current process involve technology to speed up the design, construction and approval processes; alternative methods of compliance verification; timelier verification and more effective technical support; compliance assistance; and penalties for violations.8 Beyond that, the industry should consider longer-term thinking that identifies alternative approaches to reach the same goals but through application of methodologies aimed at achieving the goal of a high rate of confirmed compliance.

NCSBCS/Alliance Survey on Savings from the Application of Information Technology to Building Codes Administration and Enforcement Processes, May 2005, National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards and Alliance for Building Regulatory Reform in the Digital Age, http://www.natlpartnerstreamline.org/2006CD/ content/pdf/ROI_Report_May05.pdf; Summary Report on Results of The Alliance/NCSBCS/AIA Survey on Electronic Plans Submittals, Tracking, Review, Retrieval and Storage, May 2004, http://www.natlpartnerstreamline.org/2006CD/content/html/electronic_plans_survey.html 6 See Conover DR, EJ Makela, JD Fannin, and RS Sullivan. 2011. Compliance Verification Paths for Residential and Commercial Energy Codes. PNNL-20822, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. http://www.pnnl.gov/publications/abstracts.asp?report=420277 7 The Insurance Services Office (ISO) serves the insurance industry by supplying information useful for the underwriting process, including evaluation of risks within a community. See www.iso.com. 8 See the section on “Streamlining the Regulatory Process to Improve Effectiveness and Efficiency” for additional discussion on this issue. 5

5

6


A number of jurisdictions and other building industry participants have experimented with “non-traditional” compliance mechanisms. Some examples include: • Use of approved third parties to provide plan review and construction inspection services for state and local governments. This approach, while not really non-traditional, uses different entities within the traditional model. (It is not much different than a code official relying on a third-party product certification.) • A Virginia law provides tax credits for buildings that, as operated, exceed the state energy code by 30%. Localities must elect to implement the provisions triggering the tax office to set up the program and the locality or their agents verifying compliance via a building audit and review of actual energy consumption. • Plans and construction reviewed by a utility as a condition for utility connection. Insurers checking for compliance as a condition of providing coverage.

• The Joint Commission—ongoing inspections of healthcare facilities—if the facility wants to serve Medicare and Medicaid recipients, then the facility must meet certain criteria and be inspected to verify compliance. • Heavy penalties that personally impact those responsible for ensuring designs or construction are compliant; for instance, contractor licensing that revokes a license; a registered design professional’s losing his/her license to practice; or, as in Hammurabi’s code, the ultimate penalty—death. • Reference in a contact document where the owner/developer is the compliance verification entity and lack of compliance results in some penalty to the designer/contractor. • Legal action for non-compliance. As to documenting compliance rates, a number of studies address how well states comply with their energy codes.9

Existing Buildings in the Regulatory Environment How the current and future U.S. regulatory environment impacts existing commercial buildings deserves in-depth analysis. The past decade has seen more aggressive efforts to adopt and apply building regulations to existing buildings retroactively. This is counter to the traditional model of only regulating new building construction and additions or renovations to existing buildings. Specific examples of this trend include requirements for energy efficiency, green building techniques, fire safety (both passive, such as area separations and shelter-in-place and active, such as fire suppression systems), emergency egress and structural retrofits. The Consultative Council’s Existing Buildings Topical Committee recommends targeted efforts to quantify the impacts of this trend on the existing building stock, including: • Researching to identify appropriate metrics that allow for the consideration of both the beneficial and negative impacts of retroactive new construction regulations on building owners, tenants and other users of existing buildings, as well as the society at large, • Cataloging the analytical tools currently available that the commercial real estate industry and interested others can use to quantify the benefits and negative impacts of specific types of building renovations and retrofits, and • Identifying best practices currently in use that facilitate an effective cost/benefit analysis. Regulatory approaches to reduce energy use in existing buildings commonly focus on requirements for installing individual components in buildings, such as lighting; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); etc. However, many such components are already approaching their cost-effective and technically possible efficiency levels. To achieve goals for decreased energy use, building scientists recommend a shift towards a holistic,

9

For instance see http://aceee.org/proceedings-paper/ss10/panel08/paper27.

systems-based approach to whole building efficiency. Unfortunately, the regulatory structure in place allows little room for such considerations. In buildings, as in many other areas, technology outpaces advances in regulatory structures. The Council recommends that the building community and policymakers examine if the current regulatory structure for building components supports achievement of energy efficiency goals or if it requires a more sophisticated approach. Retro-commissioning, the application of a specialized commissioning process to existing buildings, serves an important role in facilitating the optimum performance of existing buildings. Retro-commissioning seeks to improve how building equipment and systems function together through application of a defined evaluation process. Because the equipment, enclosure or use may have changed since construction, retro-commissioning seeks to optimize the building as a system made of sub-systems. Depending on the age of the building, retro-commissioning can often resolve problems that occurred during design or construction, or address problems developed throughout a building’s life. In all, retro-commissioning improves building operations efficiency and improves maintenance procedures to enhance overall building performance. Over the life of a building, implementation of a sequenced and scheduled series of retro-commissioning events (sometimes referred to as continual commissioning) for all building systems also can allow an owner to optimize the systems, within reason, over their useful lifespan. To realize the significant performance achievements possible, building owners must recognize the value of retro-commissioning and the importance of well-qualified retro-commissioning authorities. Education and outreach to building owners, along with effective incentives for retro-commissioning implementation, will help advance the realization of performance goals.


Research and Development Needs to Achieve High Performance Buildings and their related infrastructure are complex. Highperformance buildings optimize numerous attributes to achieve the buildings people need and the characteristics they prefer. Bringing complex buildings in line with these characteristics, while avoiding unintended consequences, requires a robust and comprehensive research program. The Consultative Council has identified several key elements of such a program. Given the importance of buildings to the nation’s economy and its citizens, the federal government has a significant role in supporting this research. Federal agencies already have high-quality institutions that can inform and conduct such research, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories and the. The National Science Foundation also can provide a mechanism to examine cross disciplinary issues. While research and development needs can be identified within every building discipline, in 2012, the Consultative Council identified cross-cutting research needs that represent key hurdles in the advancement of the built environment. Providing the body of knowledge and tools for high-performance building and infrastructure practices requires substantial, comprehensive and sustained programs of research, development and demonstration (RDD). Numerous public agencies, private foundations and private industries fund RDD for high-performance buildings and infrastructure. Policymakers and the building community need mechanisms to coordinate and advance these programs. In addition, agencies should consider what interdisciplinary, multisponsored research is needed and stimulate the necessary funding, with clear indications of what benefits are to be achieved. In addition to the specific areas discussed in depth in this report, the Council and its member organizations strongly encourage policymakers, foundations and research institutions to provide financial, political and technical support for research in the following areas: • Developing more widely accepted metrics to demonstrate payback periods for energy and water-efficiency code provisions, as well as better methods to present how code updates are based on the latest knowledge and experience to protect public safety. Municipalities are delaying the adoption of updated codes and standards due to the perception that such updates will increase construction costs while providing an uncertain return on investment. • Gathering, collating and understanding data about current energy and water use in buildings. This information would foster better decision-making regarding the most cost-effective technologies to deploy in various building types and in different regions

of the country. A better understanding of how water is used in buildings is needed to properly size water pipes. Such an understanding will inform efforts to balance the needs for energy and water efficiency with the need to maintain residual pressures for safety and other performance concerns. Knowledge of load profiles for various systems can support development and selection of the most efficient equipment to accomplish a specific task. Advanced metering and sub-metering technologies, including less-invasive water sub-metering technologies, can be employed to better understand the complex water use patterns associated with various building types. Identifying health and environmental impacts and appropriate water quality requirements of nonpotable water use to protect public health and safety. The lack of information on the public health impacts of using non-potable water impedes the acceptance of the practice by public health officials. Having this knowledge will assist the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in setting uniform national non-potable water quality standards, along with permissible utilizations of non-potable water. For irrigation-related uses, such information also needs to include the impact of non-potable water on soil hydrology, long-term plant health and microbiological constituents. Identifying procedures for decentralized water quality management. In the United States, the treatment of water is decentralized, with treatment systems placed in multiple locations. This dramatically complicates efforts to both regulate treatment and ensure the system is operating properly to protect public health. Developing an improved understanding of the complex relationship between energy and water. This includes the need to use water in the production of energy, and the need to use energy in the treatment of drinking water and wastewater; the distribution of drinking water; heating of water; and other various uses of water. • Developing and disseminating model practices for community involvement in planning and design for specific building types and infrastructure projects. The public needs to be involved throughout the life cycle of a building or infrastructure system to assure that the facility contributes to, and is perceived by stakeholders to contribute to, the sustainability of the affected communities. • Investigating the relationship between the current code enforcement and compliance verification process and the actual achievement of code requirements. Such an effort should include examination of the role of building information modeling (BIM) and other technologies that foster a less costly, more timely and accurate way to document and verify compliance with building criteria.

Identifying and Filling the Research Gaps Building industry-related research typically focuses on specific technologies and represents a smaller portion of the industry’s overall expenditures than most other sectors. Because the research is either highly focused or poorly funded, significant gaps exist in obtaining the findings necessary to provide a holistic, science-based methodology for achieving high-performance buildings.

To begin the effort of gathering existing research on all aspects of high-performance buildings, the National Institute of Building Sciences and AIA established a joint initiative called the Building Research Information Knowledgebase (BRIK).10 The knowledgebase’s content can help to identify gaps in existing research.

BRIK is an interactive portal that offers free online access to peer-reviewed research projects and case studies in all facets of the built environment. See http://www.brikbase.org. 10

7

8


Understanding baseline metrics and potential levels of performance achievable with existing technology requires specific research. A gap assessment is required to determine where information is insufficient to set accurate baseline metrics or to develop acceptable methodologies to measure and express performance. Expanding integrated research across multiple performance attributes will best reflect the goal of considering buildings as a sum of coordinated parts. Beyond the need to conduct additional research, the existing research needs to be disseminated better. Long-term efforts to

expand building research should include collaboration among universities and the DOE’s National Laboratories in the identification and conduct of such research. Universities should focus their attention on growing successful Masters and Ph.D. programs in building physics, building technology, architectural engineering, high-performance architecture, advanced enclosures and all aspect of the building sciences. This should coordinate with Institute program efforts to grow and bolster programs in these areas of study.

Time-Dependent Value of Energy In a building, almost every use of electricity shows a distinct hourly (if not more granular) load profile, which also may vary by season or day of the week; constant loads rarely occur. In addition, the actual cost of generating and delivering electricity (and, to a lesser extent, natural gas) varies hourly during the day and by season. Time-of-use (TOU) rates, and the resource mixes and emissions they represent, vary across utility service areas easily by a factor of three or more between on-peak and off-peak periods. TOU cost differences often translate into retail tariffs for larger commercial and industrial customers and, with the rapid spread of advanced interval meters that can collect data on loads every 15 minutes (or more often), increasingly may apply to residential customers. Regardless of whether (or how well) utility system hourly costs reflect in retail rates, the costs themselves are real, and are borne by ratepayers and society as a whole. An accurate assessment of the value of saving a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity (or therm of gas) depends on when the savings occur. Current energy codes significantly under-value some energy-saving measures while over-valuing others by considering only the annual kWh (or Btu of fuel) used or saved in the assessment of proposed revisions to those codes. Use of TOU rates could better inform future decisions regarding energy code revisions. Finally, the recently published U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) “Methodology for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Residential Energy Code Changes” (http://www.energycodes. gov/development/residential/methodology) does not include the time-dependent value of energy savings from codes; instead it uses a static value (national average electricity and fuel costs). Future revisions should incorporate TOU rate information. In November 2011, in response to the DOE “Request for Information on a Proposed Method for Building Energy Codes Cost Analysis” (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-BC-0046), the Alliance to Save Energy suggested that, although a complex problem, over the long term, “DOE should move toward analyzing the cost-effectiveness of energy code provisions based on a timedependent valuation of energy savings (TDV).” The Alliance’s recommendation applies to both residential and non-residential code analyses.

At the state level, California, in its 2005 version of the Title 24 Building Energy Code, has incorporated TDV analysis of building energy code proposals and code compliance and updated the provisions for subsequent revisions of that code.11 It may take a considerable effort to develop an approach to TDV code analysis and code implementation for utility systems (or interconnected reliability regions) nationally, and to maintain current data as utility generating, transmission and distribution systems evolve over time. However, DOE’s inclusion of this methodology in its recent analysis of air conditioner efficiency standards, prepared by one of the consultants that participated in the California Title 24 Analysis (http://www.ethree.com/ public_projects/tdv.php), demonstrates the ability to conduct a national TDV evaluation. Either the California methodology discussed above or the national TDV study used for the DOE air conditioner standards could serve as an initial approach, while recognizing the need to consider a longer time-frame for buildings than for air conditioners. California’s Title 24 and the use of TDV for federal appliance standards have provided a solid starting point, but additional research and methodology development are needed. Utilities, policymakers and code developers should develop an approach to time dependent valuation (TDV) code analysis and code implementation for utility systems (or interconnected reliability regions) nationally, and to maintain current data as utility generating, transmission and distribution systems evolve over time . Codes and standards developers should consider the increasing emphasis on, and availability of, energy storage systems, while considering the time value of energy in assessing the relative value of energy-related enhancements to buildings, whether as a minimum code or by other criteria intended to realize above-code buildings. In conjunction with the consideration of the time value of energy in assessing the relative value of energy related enhancements to buildings, codes should also address the increasing emphasis on and availability of energy storage systems. Such systems include grid size electrical storage as well as customer service side electrical and thermal systems.

See “Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) Economics” at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/documents/measures/01/1_2002-03_ECON_PGEHESCHONG.PDF; a presentation of the issue at http://www.slideserve.com/sprague/time-dependent-valuation-tdv-for-energy-standards; Supportive reports at http:// www.h-m-g.com/Projects/TDV/TDVDefault.htm; “Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) – Economics Methodology” at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/ archive/rulemaking/documents/tdv/TDV_ECON_METHOD_EXTRACT.PDF; an update: “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards - 2008 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV), Methodology Report (April 18, 2008)” at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/prerulemaking/documents/ E3/draft-reports/TDVmethodology2008.doc; and a more recent update: “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards - 2013 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) Data Sources and Inputs” at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/ Title24_2013_TDV_Methodology_Report_23Feb2011.pdf. 11


Updating Water Supply Pipe Sizing Requirements for Buildings During the 1920s, the Division of Building and Housing within the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now NIST, published 18 Building and Housing Reports, which recommended building code requirements that would eliminate waste in construction costs, making housing safe, sanitary and affordable.12 NBS continued its low-cost housing research in the following decade, publishing 110 reports in its “Building Materials and Structures” series. The most notable research effort by the Division and its Building Code Committee focused on plumbing. The researchers recognized that, in order to satisfactorily resolve their differing opinions, plumbers and engineers required scientific evidence obtained through experiments. NBS charged the Division with investigating the underlying principles of hydraulics in plumbing systems. The researchers understood the national need for arriving at a sound statistical model for engineers to employ during the design of plumbing systems in order to ensure adequate residual pressure for performance and, conversely, adequate velocity in water pipes to mitigate the growth of pathogens. This initiated the most thorough and advanced investigations on plumbing systems, which would eventually influence the revision of plumbing codes in all states. One particular investigation used probabilistic models in the design of plumbing systems for drainage and water supply.13 In the early 1940s, Dr. Roy Hunter developed formulas for pipe sizing requirements. This recommended method of pipe sizing was published in the Federal Plumbing Manual and was widely accepted and mirrored in all state-adopted plumbing codes.14 The pipe sizing requirements contained in today’s plumbing codes are based on Dr. Hunter’s formulas. The current model plumbing codes in the United States all contain provisions for estimating demand loads and pipe sizing based on the federal manual and Hunter’s formulas. Although researchers over the decades continued to statistically analyze the characteristics of plumbing fixture use, potential modifications to the Hunter method and new computational methods for predicting water supply demand loads, the results have not been conclusive enough to result in revisions to the plumbing codes. Since 1974, experts in the field of plumbing have recognized that even though the Hunter method represented significant advancements in the design of plumbing systems, it did not allow for the complexity of fixtures and other characteristics of modern plumbing systems. Most practicing engineers believe that applying Hunter’s method in most building types results in excessive over-design of the system. One prominent report estimated that even a 5% reduction in the cost of materials would result in an annual savings of $250 million.15

Despite the significant ongoing need, in the mid-1980s, the NBS plumbing program was terminated and the federal government’s leadership in advancing plumbing research and application ended. In 1992, the Federal Energy Policy Act, which reduced flush volumes and flow rates of plumbing fixtures, further exacerbated the application of the Hunter method, since this probabilistic model assumed flush volumes and flow rates from standardized fixtures of the 1940s. Now, more than ever, the industry needs the federal government’s leadership to conduct the necessary research to address this important plumbing issue. Today’s buildings are increasingly more complex and it is unlikely that one pipe sizing formula will work for today’s diverse building types. The existing guidelines result in significantly oversized water supply plumbing systems. If the federal government conducted the needed research and obtained the necessary data, taking into account the reduced water consumption levels associated with modern plumbing products, appliances and commercial and industrial equipment, plumbing systems could be more efficient. A building with an efficient water supply system would yield significant energy and water savings throughout its life. In addition to increased energy and water efficiencies, a health and safety benefit also exists. Accurately sizing the diameter of water supply pipes to match demand levels for high-efficiency plumbing fixtures and appliances will help mitigate the potential for pathogens to grow and contaminate drinking water.16 In addition, smaller systems require fewer materials to build, fewer water service connection fees and lower water metering fees, thereby making buildings and housing more affordable for consumers. However, by switching to smaller systems, water utilities may lose potential revenue as oversized water meters fail to accurately register reduced flow rates. In 2012, The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) and the American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) began a joint investigation of pipe sizing to determine if enough information and data exists today to make recommendations for updating the pipe-sizing requirements in the model plumbing codes. This effort resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the type of research and data still required to begin arriving at the answers needed to update sizing requirements.17 Specifically, researchers need water use data to gain a better understanding of usage patterns in various building types. This information will allow them to identify the correct statistical models to accurately predict peak water demands and simultaneity of events (i.e., when a number of plumbing events, such as flushing, showering and running the dishwasher, occur at the same time), resulting in the proper sizing of the water supply system.

Achenbach, Paul R. (1970) Building Research at the National Bureau of Standards, NBS Building Science Series 0, U.S. Department of Commerce. Recommended Minimum Requirements for Plumbing, (1928) Report BH13, U.S. Department of Commerce; Hunter, Roy B. (1941) Possible Savings and Substitutions of Materials in the Plumbing Field, Central Housing Committee: Minutes of the 13th Meeting, Appendix A:5.; Hunter, Roy B. (1941) Water-Distributing Systems for Buildings, Report BMS79, U.S. Department of Commerce; Hunter, Roy B., (1940) Method of Estimating Loads in Plumbing Systems, Report BMS65, U.S. Department of Commerce. 14 Plumbing Manual (1940) Report BMS66, U.S. Department of Commerce. 15 Water Distribution and Supply Within Buildings: National Research Needs (1974) U.S. National Committee for the International Council for Building Research, Studies and Documentation Counterpart Commission to CIB W-62, Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings, National Academy of Sciences. 16 ASHRAE Guideline: Reducing the Risk of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems, ASHRAE Draft, June 2011. 17 Buchberger, S.G., Blokker, M., and Cole, D.P. (2012) Estimating Peak Water Demands in Hydraulic Systems I – Current Practice, Proceedings of Symposium WDSA 2012, Australia. 12 13

9

10


To understand these usage patterns will require metering and sub-metering a statistically valid number of buildings, segregated by building type. Surveying the type of fixtures and appliances installed in the testing sample will provide necessary volume and flow rates. Data loggers installed at the individual fixtures within each building would record the frequency of use for both hot and cold water. Additional data loggers on branch and main supplies would record the frequency of simultaneity events occurring. This data gathered from the frequency of use and simultaneity events can serve as the input needed for creating probability models to predict the demand for any given building type. To provide the necessary data, such testing would need to occur over the course of one year. A federal government research institute, specifically NIST, is the suitable and viable agency to develop such a research program to improve the current computational method for the design and evaluation of building water service and distribution systems. The Consultative Council recommends the federal government fund the creation of a research program to specifically develop and demonstrate improved computational methods for the design of water service and distribution systems in a wide variety of buildings. The research program’s objectives should include: • Development of a theoretically rigorous mathematical model to utilize for practical, simplified computational procedures in plumbing codes. The model should provide:  Appropriate inputs for the accurate hydraulic sizing of water distribution and service pipes based on the water use of plumbing fixtures and appliances, including:  Occurrence of a single event for a given kind of fixture or appliance;  Frequency of use, or the average time between successive uses, of any given fixture or appliance of a particular kind, particularly during peak periods;  Duration of use, or the average duration of flow, for a single use of a given kind of fixture or appliance;  Flow rate of the fixture and appliance during actual operation;  Pressure requirements for the satisfactory operation of the fixture and appliance;  The probability of zero water use;  The probability of simultaneous water use among two or more fixtures and appliances; and  Identifying a level of confidence or appropriate safety factor to address uncertainties in how multiple instances of water use may impose the peak load on the water supply system.

• Verification of the mathematical model by:  Statistical Data  Sufficient sampling from various building occupancy types (dwellings, schools, hospitals, offices, assembly-type buildings, etc.);  Field measurements of the modeled sizing requirements through the use of data loggers on the water distribution system, including a sufficient number of cold and hot water supply branches;  The number and type of plumbing fixtures and appliances per type of building occupancy;  The average number of occupants per type of building occupancy; and  Geographic location.  Experimentation  Empirical testing of plumbing fixtures and appliances to determine actual flow rates dependent upon a range of varying pressures (psi), including measurements of actual peak water supply demand in buildings and the frequency and duration of peak demands;  The effect of differing piping materials on the hydraulic parameters effecting demand loads, particularly friction, flow rate and pressure; and  Measurements of velocity in various pipe materials to determine parameters for the prevention of water hammer and noise. • A method that includes both general computation of hydraulic loads and pipe sizes, and simple tables and graphs for use in plumbing codes for most common building types. • Collaboration with interested parties, including manufacturers, contractors, plumbing engineers, regulatory agencies, utilities, universities and code and standards developers. The researchers should also incorporate important research papers, existing data and program research from other countries. • Publications of the precise computational algorithm with the correlating field data; recommended language to submit the new data into current plumbing codes; and a design guideline for design engineers, plan reviewers and inspectors to reference. • An economic comparison of designs using the old code versus the new code. • Production of a seamless integration of the hydraulic design approach with emerging BIM technologies for building design and construction.

Energy and Water Savings Associated with Increased Use of Thermal Insulation Hot water delivery systems routinely use thermal insulation (pipe insulation) to maintain the temperature of the water as it travels from the source (the hot water heater) to the destination (the faucet at the sink). All current energy codes and standards require some degree of thermal insulation on potable hot water piping. However, the requirements between codes vary and except for the newer “green” codes, most requirements are normally considered minimum levels. The existing research has not considered the value of water when making the business case for putting additional pipe insulation on hot water piping, increasing the thickness of insulation

or identifying a scope of work for insulation installation. While studies have looked at energy efficiency, they have not addressed the short-term economics, which depend on frequency, duration and pattern of usage, and remain the overriding consideration for most building owners. Thermal insulation for mechanical systems is a simple and cost-effective technology for reducing heat losses and gains in building systems and manufacturing processes. As energy codes, standards and associated regulations—both prescriptive and holistic—become more stringent, and building owners, operators and tenants strive for higher performing and more sustainable


buildings, designers and owners should focus on how and where to use more, not less, insulation. Initial studies and analysis demonstrate that pipe insulation reduces the amount of time it takes to get the correct temperature water to the end user, thereby conserving water resources and, in hot water delivery systems, saving energy. Planning for, and installing, proper thermal insulation systems at the time of construction is significantly easier and more cost effective than retrofitting or upgrading the insulation systems later. Therefore, when facilities renovating or repairing facilities, building owners should not overlook the opportunity to upgrade pipe insulation; and other insulation systems should not be overlooked. Efforts to reduce thermal insulation levels to minimize up-front costs significantly diminish the ability to achieve long-term performance of building systems. The Consultative Council recommends the federal government, with support and expertise from the building industry, conducting a study to determine how the use of thermal insulation on potable and other hot water delivery systems impact both energy and water use, and examine the business case and return on investment of that opportunity. With shortages in water and energy anticipated in the near future and both resources escalating in cost, combined with the long service life of hot water piping systems and the relatively minor incremental cost of insulation, the potential impact achieved by increasing insulation can be substantial and immediate. Before regulators, code officials, designers, owners and others will consider the advantage of expanding the scope of pipe insulation, researchers must determine, beyond that of small

examples, the impact that increased insulation would have on energy efficiency, water conservation and the business case. They should: • Convene a team of subject matter experts in thermal insulation and water to determine the impact of thermal insulation on energy and water use in portable hot water and other similar distribution systems, and examine the business case and return on investment of that opportunity. • Evaluate the potential use of and extrapolation of past work in this area. Research has been conducted by The California Energy Commission and others including numerous reports published by Dr. C.L. Hiller, G. Klein, and in ASHRAE Handbook Chapter 50.18 The findings indicate that thermal insulation is beneficial in the delivery, use and cool-down phases of potable hot water systems and that code requirements on the installation of thermal insulation vary greatly. • Define the scope of the study. The scope should include potable hot water and other similar delivery systems such as, but not limited to, boiler piping and steam conveyance systems. The subject matter expert team should also consider cold water delivery systems and more specifically define the scope of the study as needed. • Identify the financial and technical resources needed and their sources and timeline. In conjunction with the development of the detailed study scope and use of past work, the subject matter team shall develop the resources needed and identify sources for those resources. • Provide oversight of the study and develop final recommendations.

See Gary Klein, Hot Water Distribution Research, September/October 2006 of Official publication from the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials; ASHRAE Handbook, Chapter 50 Service Water Heating, references on pages 50.31. 18

Learn More Staff Contact: Ryan M. Colker, J.D., Director, Consultative Council/ Presidential Advisor, [email protected] Website: www.nibs.org/cc

Consultative Council Members Chair: Ron King, National Insulation Association Vice-Chair: Tom Meyer, National Environmental Balancing Bureau Secretary: Sara Yerkes, International Code Council Council Member Organizations: ASTM International American Institute of Architects American Society of Civil Engineers ASHRAE American Society of Plumbing Engineers Associated General Contractors of America Building Owners and Managers Association, International Center for the Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley Construction Specifications Institute ESCO Institute Estime Enterprises, Inc. Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association Glass Association of North America

Green Mechanical Council Grundfos Company HOK Illuminating Engineering Society Ingersoll Rand International Association of Lighting Designers International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials International Code Council Laborers' International Union of North America National Environmental Balancing Bureau National Insulation Association NORC at the University of Chicago United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Topical Committee Facilitators: Defining High Performance & Common Metrics: Jessyca Henderson, American Institute of Architects Energy and Water Efficiency: Pete DeMarco, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Education and Training: Larry Bulman, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Codes and Standards Adoption and Enforcement: Nancy McNabb, National Institute of Standards and Technology Sustainability: Richard Wright and Michael Sanio, American Society of Civil Engineers Existing Buildings: Ron Burton, Building Owners and Managers Association, International and Bob Horner, Illuminating Engineering Society

11

National Institute of

BUILDING SCIENCES

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005-4950 Phone: (202) 289-7800 Fax: (202) 289-1092 www.nibs.org