NAIOP Study Shows that Saving Energy Takes Know-How

The Lewis and Clark State Office Building in Missouri achieved 60% energy savings on a tight, state-mandated budget. Critics of the NAIOP study point to buildings like this one to say that energy savings of 30%–50% are possible and often cost-effective.

A recent study released by the Commercial Real Estate Development Association (also known as NAIOP), has become a flashpoint for debate over the cost-effectiveness of green building measures. The study, authored by energy consulting firm ConSol and released on February 24, 2009, models the energy performance of a hypothetical four-story, 95,000 ft² (8,800 m²) building in Baltimore, Chicago, and Newport Beach, California.

After modeling a baseline building meeting the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, the authors added energy-saving features to try to reach 30% and 50% energy savings with paybacks of under ten years. Over 40 versions of 13 features were studied, but only eight are mentioned in the final report, among them reduced lighting loads, air sealing, high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment, increased insulation, and decreased glazing ratios. The authors concluded that the largest energy savings possible with the specified payback was 23% in the Chicago building, 21.5% in Baltimore, and 15.8% in Newport Beach.

The study has been cited in the New York Times and elsewhere as bringing into question the feasibility of basic energy-efficiency benchmarks championed in the green building community. However, critics of the study argue that it ignored many savings opportunities and underestimates the savings potential of the measures it does include. The study based its payback-time calculations on average commercial utility prices in each state. By omitting peak demand charges and other adjustments, this simplification underestimates the dollar savings available.

Critics, including Edward Mazria, FAIA, of the advocacy group Architecture 2030, have focused on the design of the modeled building: square, with equal amounts of glazing on each side. Mazria argues that “NAIOP intentionally kept out of the analysis all the readily available low-cost, no-cost, and cost-saving options to reduce a building’s energy consumption.” Among those options, Mazria says, are changing the geometry of the building, adjusting glazing for building orientation, and installing operable windows. Whether these measures were omitted out of a desire to skew the outcome is not clear, but it is striking that such obvious opportunities are not even included in a short list of measures that the consultants identified for possible future analysis.

John Bryant, senior director for federal affairs at NAIOP, notes that some energy-saving techniques, such as shading with trees, were not included in the model because they are not accounted for in building codes, an omission that limits the study’s validity. To simplify the modeling, he said, ConSol used the same building in the same orientation in each climate. Altering the building to meet the microclimate of each location, Bryant told EBN, “would add an infinite number of additional energy runs needed to understand the impacts of what could be thousands of minor changes to building architecture.” He also noted that “the study was designed to examine current mid-rise office construction,” which does not often include significant changes in building structure to match climatic conditions.

Similarly, the study notes that integrated design is vital to achieving significant energy savings, but the method “would be in significant contrast to standard development practices that are designed to maximize leasable area.” Therefore the model did not account for integration of building systems that might arise from such collaboration.

In its structure and conclusions, the study reflects the two-pronged industry resistance to green building: energy efficiency is either seen as too expensive or as requiring too much change in design and construction practices. The U.S. Green Building Council noted in an official statement that such practices are not that far-fetched: “LEED-certified buildings are proof-positive that you can achieve 30% and greater energy efficiency using integrated design with little or no additional first costs.” NAIOP claims that such buildings are not relevant to the larger industry. Bryant does not deny that “showcase” properties exist, but he notes, “Our problem with setting the bar too high and citing examples of the most energy-efficient properties available is that the vast majority of development will not be able to replicate those energy efficiencies, at least not immediately.”

Dave Hewitt, the executive director of the New Buildings Institute, was disappointed in the study and thinks that NAIOP missed an opportunity to lead the industry. “Rather than commission a study to ‘prove’ developers should fight needed changes to tackle our economic, energy, and environmental problems, NAIOP should lead its members to solutions,” he said.

– Allyson Wendt

For more information:

NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association
www.naiop.org

IMAGE CREDITS:
1. Photo: BNIM Architects