Greg Zimmerman

Ten Lessons from Germany: Don't be "Energetic Stupid"

2010-04-22T11:13:00Z

I’ve learned many, many things from a week-long tour organized by a think tank called the Ecologic Institute and dedicated to German green building and sustainable strategies. For one, as the week in Germany has turned into two, I’ve learned that the whims of Mother Nature are not to be trifled with. But now, as I sit in a café in Berlin, booked for a flight home tomorrow (April 23), I finally have a real chance to reflect on what I will take back with me from this fantastic trip.

1.      Germans love the word “stupid.” A solar company we toured uses the tagline “Don’t Leave the Planet to the Stupid” on the front cover of their marketing brochures. And the green building guru for Deutsche Bank used “energetic stupid” several times to mean “energy inefficient” throughout his presentation about the bank’s $270 million remodel of its headquarters facility. A system that controls the operable windows will tell bankers when it is “energetic stupid” to try to open the windows. But they can do it anyway, and just be “energetic stupid.” I promise you, that never got old.

2.      For both commercial and residential buildings, Germans are required to measure energy use and report it in a form called an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). The EPC must then be made available to tenants, investors, buyers or anyone involved in a financial transaction with the building. It’s a federal law. This mirrors the building labeling laws that are beginning to pop up in places like California, Washington State, Washington, D.C., and New York City. For Germans, the EPC system is relatively new, but they’re hoping to mine some data that will eventually show that energy efficient buildings are more valuable than “energetic stupid” buildings.

3.      Germans, on the whole, are very committed to energy efficiency, renewable energy and emissions reductions. Whereas in the U.S., many climate change deniers are still impeding progress on emissions reduction strategies, Germans, for the most part, have a firm grasp of the climate change problem and a clear understanding of the actions required to attempt to mitigate it.

4.      We toured a German government-backed bank in Frankfurt called KfW, which offers low-interest loans to home and commercial building owners to make green renovations. The loan system is very popular and many take advantage of it to make improvements they otherwise would not have been able to afford. KfW is also remodeling its corporate headquarters with many green strategies and the bank will get 100 percent of its energy from green sources.

5.      The German Sustainable Building Council has a green building rating system similar to LEED, only much more rigorous, according to several sources. One reason the Germany system is tougher is that it requires buildings to achieve a minimum performance in all of 51 sustainable strategies. Miss one, and no certification. These credit areas include many strategies LEED doesn’t touch – like fire codes, acoustics and “art in architecture.” Additionally, the German system’s energy requirements are bit tougher than LEED’s.

6.      Despite our general understanding in the US of Germany’s vast superiority to us in terms of energy generated from solar, they still only get less than 1 percent of their total energy from solar. The total for all renewables, however, is 7 percent.

7.      Germany is considering decommissioning some perfectly operational and profitable nuclear power plants. But many are skeptical that this will actually happen. They’ve already take steps to insure that no more nuclear plants are built, and have not yet extended the license to operate of some that already do exist. Much like in the U.S., nuclear power is a very sensitive and politically charged issue here.

8.      Germans emit less the half the carbon dioxide per capita than Americans. (19.1 metric tons per year per American vs. 9.7 metric tons per year per German.) So, yes, they are a bit ahead of us in that respect.

9.      An elegant design solution and rating system called Passive House is gaining traction in Germany and is just starting to be understood in the U.S. as well. We visited the first Passive House-certified grade school in Germany, where the ultra-energy-efficient building uses a relatively simple ventilation system, operable windows, and other strategies for heating and cooling. The building does have an HVAC system, but our guide told us that the only time they use it is during winter breaks, when there is no one in the building.

10. Finally, I learned that when you’re stuck in travel hell, there are travel angels and travel demons. I found a few of each during my extended stay. Here’s hoping I encounter nothing but travel angels the rest of the way!

What, Really, is a Net-Zero Energy Building?

2010-01-04T17:22:00Z

This question seems to be coming up more and more frequently these days — especially since, inspired by DOE's new Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative, the federal government has endeavored to achieve net zero energy on all its buildings by 2025.

Most agree that there are three steps to a truly net-zero energy building, in order of importance: 1) Energy efficiency. 2) Onsite renewable energy. 3) Purchase of renewable energy in the form of RECs, or green tags. After all, the more energy efficient a building is, the fewer number of kwh have to be generated with solar panels or purchased as green energy. Currently, there's no question that a new net-zero energy building carries a hefty cost compared with a standard code building. And, making an existing building net-zero energy is difficult to the point that hardly anyone is even attempting it. But there are net-zero buildings out there, and more and more are cropping up by the day.

I bring this up now because I'm working on a piece for the February issue of Building Operating Management on net-zero energy commercial buildings. I'm wondering if there are MyFN users out there who have worked on net-zero energy buildings and would be willing to share their expertise. Please comment below — hope to hear from you!

What the heck is evidence-based design anyway?

2009-09-23T15:58:00Z

If you're in the health care industry, you're probably familiar with the term "evidence-based design." If you're not (in the health care industry or familiar with the term), it refers to studying how facility strategies, like centralized nursing stations and single-patient rooms, can affect both patient outcomes and worker productivity.

Lately, however, the field of evidence-based design is expanding into other vertical markets. And this transition is a subject of a research project by the editors of Building Operating Management. We're looking into how everything from green operational strategies to hotelling policies can affect worker productivity. Often times, we're finding, facility executives are employing evidence-based design strategies - or studying strategies with a "before/after" mindset - even though they may not necessarily call it evidence-based design.

We're hoping to hear from the MyFN community. Are you studying a particular strategy you've employed in your non-health care facilities that you expect to have a particular outcome? Could we contact you as a source for our article? Please comment below - we look forward to hearing from you!

Will You Lose LEED Certification for Poor Energy Performance?

2009-09-16T13:25:00Z

I wrote the following as part of an e-newsletter called the Green Building Alert, which came out yesterday. The feedback has been terrific - stories about buildings that outperformed projections, conspiracy theories about USGBC's evil ways, and solid, well-reasoned arguments for why ongoing measurement and verification needs to be a prerequisite for LEED certification - and soon. So I figured I'd post the e-newsletter here too to see what the MyFN community has to say. Comment at will!

First, the untruth: Your LEED certification will be revoked if your energy performance falls a few percentage points below what you initially modeled (and earned points) for. USGBC took one on the chin a few weeks ago with this NY Times piece about how some LEED-certified buildings may not be quite as efficient as originally thought. Certainly, that's nothing new - it's been a long-running complaint for those who love to take potshots at LEED.

But what has been happening lately - especially with USGBC's new Building Performance Initiative (BPI) announcement (see In the News below) — is that some in the industry wrongly think that the BPI program will lead to certification being revoked for poor performance. Some have even suggested that building owners should start preparing their lawsuits against architects or engineers if certification were to be taken away. (There actually has been a smattering of lawsuits for not achieving a promised level of certification, including this one which was settled in March.)

No doubt many in the industry would love to see certification revoked for failing to live up to the predicted performance, but many also argue that the model is just that — a prediction that does not guarantee future results, for several reasons (building use changes, HVAC system-use change, etc.)

So what's the truth about BPI and certification? The Building Performance Initiative has actually been a part of the LEED 2009 program since the new suite of rating systems was released in April. If you look in the Minimum Program Requirements (MRP) section of any of the LEED rating systems, you'll find a stipulation that the project team agrees to report energy and water data for a period of five years. That requirement is actually intended to be a built-in study of the performance data of LEED-certified, not necessarily that USGBC is watching over your shoulder, ready to yank your plaque at a moment's notice.

Yes, certification will be revoked if you fail to comply with that MRP requirement — but USGBC is promising to make reporting as easy as possible, setting up a Website to report, and even working with utilities in some cases to automate the process.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that USGBC is acutely aware of the issue of some LEED-certified buildings not being as energy efficient as they were designed, and is taking steps to remedy this "loop hole" (as some LEED critics call it). There's a credit in LEED for New Construction for ongoing measurement and verification, which is a step in the right direction.

(By the way, if you'd like to sign up for the Green Building Alert e-newsletter, please click here.)

Overhaul of the LEED AP System Continues...And Credibility Follows

2009-08-28T16:01:00Z

The LEED Accredited Professional system continues to evolve. First, when LEED 2009 was introduced earlier this year, the new organization called the Green Building Certification Institute (which handles certification for both people and buildings) announced two new "levels" of accreditation. The LEED Green Associate is for non-technical industry professionals, and the LEED Fellow recognizes the highest tier of leadership in the green building industry.

Next, also with the release of LEED 2009, the organization announced that current LEED APs could re-test and be re-credentialed in a particular specialty - Operations and Maintenance, Interior Design and Construction, or Building Design and Construction. New tests have been and are being developed to attain these specialties - and by many accounts, the exams are much, much more accurate barometers of green building and LEED knowledge than the test may have been a few years ago.

More recently, the organization has announced a LEED AP Credentialing Maintenance System - basically a system that requires LEED APs who wish to maintain their specialties acquire 30 hours of continuing education over a two-year period. The system, first unveiled in early August, has already had more than 1,600 LEED APs sign up.

So what does all this mean? In essence, the system overhaul will make it easier for facility executives to tell who is actually a LEED expert - designated by the specialty associated with their LEED AP credential. That's because those who have earned and are maintaining the O&M, ID&C or BD&C specialties show a commitment to the integrity of the credential - and to keeping up with their knowledge of green building in general and LEED specifically. Current LEED APs are not required to re-test, but they'll just be known as LEED APs with no specialty. So there would be no way for facility executives to tell when they actually passed the test, or if they done anything since then to stay current with LEED.

When LEED AP was first introduced, many skeptics took pot shots at its credibility. After all, anyone could study and pass a test, and then pass themselves off as an expert. Now, many of the criticisms have been addressed and the GBCI (and USGBC) has a robust, reliable credentialing system that truly can provide an indication of green building expertise.

$1.2 Trillion in Savings? All We Need to Do Is Go Green!

2009-08-06T15:18:00Z

The blogosphere has been atwitter the last few weeks after consulting firm McKinsey & Company released a 165-page report (if anyone reads the whole thing, please let me know - I owe you a beer!) citing a potential savings to the U.S. economy of $1.2 trillion through 2020 by investing $520 billion in energy efficiency and other green building measures. Such an investment would cut our energy use by 23 percent by 2020 and prevent 1.1 gigatons of carbon emissions, the report says.

While that's all very impressive, what does it really mean? Does the $1.2 trillion figure impress you, as is no doubt the intention? If you're answering "not really," you're not alone.

You are probably well-familiar with such "if we do 'x', then we'll see 'y' results"-type studies, and the funny thing is, the general reaction to this one seems to be: "Well, duh!" (Check out this blog by one of my favorite green building experts - Rob Watson - who touches on the McKinsey report.) No one is really that surprised that if we invest in energy efficiency, we'll save money. Clearly, the reason this report has generated so much buzz is the supposedly eye-popping TRILLION dollar figure.

Of course, the other most common reaction has been to bring up questions of practicality. I bet if the Cincinnati Reds - my favorite baseball team - fired manager Dusty Baker and signed $200 million in top-tier free agents this off-season, they'd have a real good chance at winning the 2010 World Series. Ain't gonna happen, unfortunately. And similarly, that $520 billion (the report says a target $50 billion over each of 10 years) investment, which is four to five times the current annual investment in energy efficiency, is fairly unlikely to happen also. It'd be nice, but it won't.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to attack this report's credibility or poo-poo the importance of energy efficiency, and I certainly don't mean to sound like a skeptical jerk. It's just that we've heard all this before. If anything, a report like this is valuable because it reiterates the value and importance of energy efficiency. Hopefully, it'll spur action - at least at an organizational level!

Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Climate Change, Cool Roofs

2009-07-27T19:05:00Z

Any fans of The Daily Show out there?

Last week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was Jon Stewart's guest to talk about the Waxman-Markey bill that just passed in the House, as well as other energy-related topics. One of those - which you almost NEVER hear on mainstream television programs - was about cool roofs. Click here and scroll to about the 6:30-minute mark in the video to hear Chu advocate for cool roofs in language almost right out of one of our articles!

House Passes Historic Climate Bill

2009-06-29T13:21:00Z

In case you missed it, late Friday afternoon, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) passed the House by a narrow vote of 219-212. The so-called climate bill - because it establishes a national cap and trade system - will now go to the Senate, where revisions are expected to the 1,200-page document before another vote. The bill will cut US emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, compared with 2005 standards.

For the House version, in addition to the cap and trade, the bill would set a national energy efficiency code to reduce commercial building use by 30 percent now and 50 percent by 2015, with a 5 percent reduction every year after that, beginning in 2018. The bill (also known as Waxman-Markey) also establishes a national renewable energy portfolio standard, requiring energy utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Here's a video of President Obama praising the House vote. Stay tuned to see what happens in the Senate - Democratic Senate leaders are expected to fast-track the bill, which means debate could begin as early as September or October.

(Please visit the site to view this video)

White Tags: A New Incentive for Energy Efficiency

2009-06-22T17:06:00Z

This may almost sound too good to be true: You do an energy efficiency project (a large-scale lighting upgrade, for instance), measure and verify the savings, and then in addition to the financial benefit of buying less energy, you could also SELL a certificate that indicates those savings to someone else for a profit. If you are in Connecticut, Nevada or Pennsylvania (and Massachusetts soon [probably]) you can do this now. It's known as a "white tag."

You may be familiar with the idea of "green tags" or RECs (renewable energy certificates). Utilities (or individual on-site generators, if they generate more renewable energy than total energy required to power their facility) can sell RECs showing that they have produced a measurable and verifiable quantity of renewable energy. Facility executives then can buy these RECs as a way to illustrate their own commitment to the environment and to get LEED points. Currently, RECs cost about $6 per 1 MWh (1 REC = 1 MWh of electricity). White tags work similarly, with the difference that one white tag certificate is 1 MWh of electricy avoided. And that tag - once the project has been certified through a combination of modeling and metering - can then be sold to a utility or another organization. The idea, of course, is that the cleanest energy is energy that's never used, says an organization called Sterling Planet, which has trademarked the white tag idea and can help organizations measure and verify their white tags, as well as connect buyers and sellers.

There are four ways to get white tags, according to Sterling Planet: Prescriptive (from retroits or replacement of existing equipment); Measured (from CHP or cogen projects); Design Method (using LEED standards); Modeled (from operational changes).

You are also probably familiar with the idea of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) - that states (or sometimes individual utilities) must generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources by a certain date (i.e, Illinois: 25 percent by 2025). Well, similarly, there are nine states that now have Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS). Connecticut, for instance, requires that utilities make efficiency 4 percent of their power portfolio by 2010. But it's only those three states mentioned earlier that use white tags as the mechanism for complying with its EEPS.

I just learned about this idea, so I'd be interested to hear your take. Have you worked with white tags? If so, what were some of the challenges and lessons learned? If not, what do you think of the idea in general? Is it needless complication or another incentive to push energy efficiency even higher up the priority list?

Bringing the Green with EPA

2009-06-11T20:07:00Z

Want to go green, but can't seem to get upper management's support? Here's a tip: Enlist the help of your occupants. Oftentimes, bottom-up pressure can be just as effective as top-down mandates in terms of instituting effective, efficient organizationwide green operational strategies. For that reason, the folks at Energy Star have created a Website and video podcast, narrated by environmental lifestyle expert Danny Seo, author of Conscious Style Home and contributor to CBS’s Early Show, that gives some simple tips on how individual employees can implement green strategies at work.

In all reality, EPA's goal for the "Bring Your Green To Work" initiative is just that: to migrate green strategies from home to the office. The idea is that if people are conscious of sustainability in general and energy savings specifically in their personal lives, they won't turn that off at work. For facility executives, the initiative (and video embedded below) also works as a tip sheet for rallying support at the grass roots level for green operational strategies. Since plugloads like desk lamps and computers are just as much a part of the energy bill as HVAC and lighting, facility executives looking to reduce costs in these tough economic times would be well-served to get their occupants on board with energy-saving strategies. So, please take a look at the short video, and if you like what you see, pass it on to your occupants!

(Please visit the site to view this video)

Hurdles to Sustainability

2009-06-02T13:46:00Z

At the first annual Corporate Sustainability Summit in Austin, Texas last week, much of the conversation and many of the seminars centered around overcoming hurdles to sustainability. At one point during the conference put on by The Center for Corporate Sustainability, the moderator asked all attendees to write down their top 3 hurdles. The three that emerged most frequently were as follows:

1) Culture, culture, culture - One attendee actually wrote this as all three of his hurdles. What he meant was that at his organization, sustainability simply wasn't a priority. He was an "insurgent" (as opposed to a "champion") in the lingo adopted by the summit after a fantastic presentation by Kit Tuveson of Tuveson and Associates on how to present to the C-suite. One way to overcome this hurdle, Tuveson explained, is to find a fellow insurgent in the C-suite. It may surprise you to find that there is a C-suiter just as interested in sustainability as you are, but hasn't made that known because s/he didn't recognize it as a corporate priority either. The other component of culture is employee buy-in. Many facility folks are surprised to find that once any sustainability initiative is begun, support from the bottom up arrives from every corner of the business. People want to do this, and just need a leader. So, the best advice: Find other insurgents, start a grass roots campaign, begin making some noise!

2) Time and money - Of course, right? In between hot/cold calls and driving cost out of your department after a recession-induced budget cut, who has time to consider sustainability also? Regarding time, sustainability simply must become a priority - cordone off some time each week to work on it. Regarding money, well, you've no-doubt heard the mantra that sustainability doesn't cost, it makes money. Start with some simple operational changes - or very low-cost upgrades (like vendor-misers on vending machines) and get some success stories under your belt.

3) Measuring and reporting results - Much of the discussion around this came down to attendees being daunted about where to start and how to collect data to report. The first presentation of the conference was by Ron Herbst, head of energy management and sustainability for Deutsche Bank, who showed how he had put together an incredibly comprehensive carbon emissions reporting and reduction plan in just over a year and a half. As impressive as it was, the presentation almost was counterproductive in that some attendees looked at Herbst's plan as an impossible standard to live up to. But the advice that emerged throughout the conference was simple: "Just start somewhere." Even if it's just putting your utilty data into a spread sheet, or calculating your Energy Star score, or checking off a few of the credits in the LEED-EB: O&M rating system. Just...start...somwhere.

So, do you agree with these three hurdles? Are there other ones you've experienced? Please comment below.

AIA 2009: Behind Enemy Lines?

2009-05-04T19:01:00Z

When you're working with an architect on a new construction project, what is the relationship like? Is it collaborative? Do you meet regularly to exchange information and allow the architects to ask questions? Or is it one meeting and then you let them do their thing?

If you ask architects what their relationships are like with building owners, it seems many will say the relationship is a frustrating one - at least that's what I drew from one of the educational sessions presented by a panel of architects at last week's AIA show in San Francisco. Apparently, if you're a building owner or facility executive, you're not the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to knowing what you want out of a building and understanding what it will take to get there.

Now, I'm not trying to stir the pot here (okay, maybe a little), but check out these two verbatim quotes from panelists: "I just don't think building owners are educated enough to understand high-performance" and "Owners don't ask us questions that are as specific as they need to be." If you had been in that session, wouldn't you have wanted to stand up and shout "NO! That's just wrong"? I'm just a journalist covering building owners and facility executives and their issues, but even I felt somehow impugned by those two statements. I felt like I was out of place - like I was "spying" on a group of architects who thought they were solely among friends.

Later in the show, I asked a pretty well-respected architect about those statements, and he sort of apologized on behalf of his profession, and then tried to explain where he thought statements like that came from. He said many, many architects have had bad experiences with building owners who build very infrequently and were troubling to work with. In those cases, the building owners may actually not have been very sophisticated when it comes to programming requirements for the building. He said that he thought, on balance, building owners and facility executives ARE very knowledgeable and intelligent when it comes to explaining what they want - especially in terms of design strategies and decision that will affect the long-term operations and maintenance of a building.

So, back to the original questions - what has been your experience like when hiring and working through a project with an architect? Please comment below...

Tenants and Landlords: Piecing Together the Split Incentive

2009-04-28T15:04:00Z

Most real estate experts agree: The biggest and longest-standing hindrance to creating green tenant space and truly green and energy efficient speculative office buildings is the idea that Amory Lovins (noted energy expert and founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute) began talking about more than 20 years ago - the so-called "split incentive."

The split incentive problem is the idea that, depending on the type of lease, either tenants or landlords (but not necessarily both) will reap the rewards of efficiency upgrades. If tenants sign a net lease, then the landlord has no incentive to help them upgrade their space or create efficiencies because the tenant sees all the benefit. If the landlord uses a gross lease structure, then the tenant has no incentive for being efficient in its own space (with efficient lighting or by minimizing plug loads, for example) because the landlord capitalizes on the tenant's efficiency.

Increasingly, however, the argument is being made that there is a way for both the tenant and landlord to see benefit from efficiency, and that way is actually the gross lease with green and energy efficiency clauses. As the argument goes, a gross lease DOES have inherent benefit to the tenant because the more efficient a space, the less a landlord can charge in rent. Other than location, cost is the No. 1 priority for a tenant, so the building will be more attractive because it'll be cheaper. Additionally, landlords are still making more profit because, even though they may be getting less in rent, their operating expenses are lower and they're leasing up their building quicker and with longer-term, better-credit-worthy tenants.

"There isn't a lease out there that isn't better for a tenant in an energy-efficient building," said a developer during an interview as I was researching an article in the December 2008 issue of Building Operating Management. This was also a point made by the presenter in a seminar I went to last week about a soon-to-be-released model green lease. More specifically, the presenter argued that the net lease structure is what disincentivizes landlords and developers from building energy efficient buildings. So more widespread adoption of the gross lease structure and the landlord being able to include green clauses in the standard lease is what will ultimately turn the market toward energy efficient and green speculative and multitenant office buildings.

The problem is that, according to CoStar, 58 percent of leases in the U.S. are net leases and landlords may not have the option to suggest the gross lease if net leases are the standard in the city in which they're leasing space. That seems to be the case here in Chicago, and as the green lease presenter joked, "So the problem we have here in Chicago is that we have to fix stupid." He argued that it will just take one landlord with, um, cajones, to start the market transformation.

Opinions about this topic seemed to be varied...and passionate. What's yours? What do you think is the most logical way to transition the standard landlord/tenant lease to one that is both green and energy efficient, but also beneficial financially for both? Please comment below.

Touring a LEED Platinum Project

2009-04-20T19:47:00Z

Last week, I had the distinct pleasure of touring the Great River Energy corporate headquarters facility in Maple Grove, Minn. The 166,000-square-foot facility, LEED-certified at the Platinum level, is absolutely stunning - a paragon of sustainable design (as evidenced by the AIA's Committee on the Environment listing it as one of the top 10 sustainable projects of 2008).

Several aspects of the building stand out. For one, the building's long east/west orientation, and north- and south-facing floor to ceiling glass on all four stories means that more than 80 percent of the occupied space has constant daylight and natural views. There's a 200 kW, 166-foot-tall wind turbine near the facilities parking lot that supplies about 10 percent of the building's electricity. Another 3 to 5 percent is provided by a rooftop solar array, as well as a few panels strategically placed on the ground. There is a dashboard right inside the facility that shows how much energy each is producing in real time. You can actually view it online, too (as well as a variety of other facility performance data).

The facility's rather unique geothermal heating and cooling system that uses 39 heat exchanger bundles sunk in the adjacent lake and 34 MILES of plastic piping is one of the key strategies that allows the building to save 47 percent (and this is actual, metered data) over a comparable building that meets ASHRAE 90.1-2004. An underfloor air distribution system also is a key to the building's efficiency. The building has 44 meters throughout, and facility staff can tell what's going on in any part of the building instantly. (Or, as the engineer so eloquently put it: "This building is riddled with sensors.")

Designers estimate that the building incurred about a 10 percent LEED premium, with a payback of about 8.6 years. However, if you take renewables out of the calculation (just solar and wind - geothermal, according to ASHRAE, is not officially a "renewable" energy), the payback on the LEED premium is slashed to 2.5 years. That is pretty amazing!

Just on an anecdotal level, when I was inside the building, it just felt different than being in a traditional building. It's not something that's easily describable, but I've heard others who are around green buildings frequently say the same thing. We had some morning presentations before the tour, and the north-facing wall of the room we were in, with its floor-to-ceiling glass, looked out onto the lake and pulled in enough light that the electric lights were very, very dim.

Kudos to Great River Energy!

Top 10 Tidbits from NFMT 2009

2009-03-12T15:07:00Z

As another NFMT wraps up, here's the show from my point of view, condensed into 10 thoughts (of varying significance):

10. The #1 cause of death of migratory birds is flying into lit building windows at night. This fact was offered as a good argument to switch to daytime cleaning in high-rise building. Other good arguments include energy efficiency, enhanced productivity of the cleaning staff, and a better cleaner / tenant relationship.

9. If you take three facility executives who have never met each other out to dinner, and get them talking (a glass of wine or two helps), you're almost guaranteed a very fun evening (and a quite candid one, at that). Make sure your sarcasm detector is in good working order, however.

8. Apparently, Alaskan crows consider EPDM roofing a good meal, according to a facility executive from Sitka, Alaska. He's had to switch to PVC roofs on many of his facilities because of the deterioration of his roofs due to the crows snacking.

7. Speaking of food, I learned that guava cheese is delicious! A facility executive from St. Kitts who I helped signed up for MyFN gave me a few cubes, and I couldn't recommend it more highly.

6. A piece of advice from a consultant who does facility retro-commissioning: Retro-commissioning should go above and beyond ASHRAE's Guideline 0 (a commissioning standard). That's because the guideline only states that the commissioning agent check to make sure all equipment was installed as designed and is working properly. The step beyond - a REAL retro-commissioning process - should help facility executives determine if the design itself makes sense. That is, is the design right-sized and is it the most efficient as possible? Basically, the retro-commissioning process should include a commissioning of the actual design.

5. LEED-EB seems to be finally catching on. Several educational session that focused on LEED-EB were packed, with standing room only.

4. Speaking of LEED-EB, if you're ever at a conference where Craig Sheehy (President/CEO of Envision Realty Services) is speaking, make it a point to attend.

3. Buying carbon offsets and RECs as a large majority of a strategy for moving toward carbon neutrality is increasingly being frowned upon. More and more facility executives recognize the importance of reducing their carbon footprints, but doing so through energy efficiency and operational changes.

2. 97 percent of the environmental impact of a food service part of a facility comes from the food itself, in terms of its land use and energy.

1. Despite the down economy and some fear, facility executives are still some of the most energetic and optimistic professionals in the buildings industry. It continues to be a pleasure to cover them.