For the past year and a half I have been the acting AIACC Liaison to the California Energy Commission (CEC), reporting directly to the AIACC State Agency Liaison Committee (SALC). In addition, during the same period, I have been educating architectural firms about the value of adding Applied Building Science services to their practice through a PG&E-sponsored educational program entitled “Moving Architects Toward Building Performance.” In speaking to over 150 Architects, both AIA and non-AIA members, one aspect of our profession has become clear. Many architects are out of touch with the thermal performance of the buildings they design, regardless of a strong belief that there are practicing energy efficiency. Thermal performance analysis is relegated to the Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing (MEP) engineers in large projects and deferred to a mechanical contractor in small ones. While architects have neglected the thermal performance of their building envelopes, the CEC has made the building envelope the highest priority. As a result, the 2013 Energy Code will require mandatory schematic design review of non-residential buildings by a registered Professional Engineer (PE), specifically excluding architects. And its requirements can have substantial, visible impact on building form; for example, it will require architects to choose between what, for many, is an unfamiliar construction technique—rigid insulation outboard of metal studs—and limitations on the allowed area of glazing. Does this mean that architects are losing control of the way buildings will look?
There is one certainty with the proposed 2013 Energy Code changes; whether it means revenue gained or lost, all architectural firms will be spending more time providing a rising “standard of care” for Energy Efficiency services to clients. These services will include some form of building science-based thermal modeling analysis, energy efficiency design, detailing, construction and compliance verification / commissioning; or adding a mix of specialty consultants to projects that will provide these services, such as CEA Energy Consultants, Commissioning Professionals, Home Energy Rating System (HERS) II Raters, HERS Compliance Testing, Green Point Raters, and LEED AP Professionals.
Considering the changing profile of architectural firms in California (mega vs. petite firms, with not much in between) the simplest option is to add the mix of specialty consultants to a project and pass these fees on to the client; that is, if the project can afford it. The downside of this option is the architect continues to lose credibility and design influence over their projects, not to mention potential billable services. As the CEC’s Zero Net Energy goals for non-residential construction are targeted for 2030, and large scale Applied Building Science is in its infancy, it is understandable why the large commercial architecture firms would see no urgency.
On the other hand, as Applied Building Science is booming in the small building sector (residential and small commercial) and as California’s Zero Net Energy goals for residential construction are targeted for 2020, the petite architectural firms in California do have something to worry about, are interested, and have been listening. Simply put, their livelihood may depend on it. When considered, it becomes obvious that adding energy modeling and applied building science services puts a petite architectural practice back in the energy efficiency game, exactly where an architect should be.
The architectural community needs to begin a dialogue on California’s Energy Efficiency Plan, and if it means starting only with those who are listening, then let’s start. It is too late for the AIACC to meaningfully participate in the 2013 code cycle, but not too late to become informed and prepared to assist and debate the technical realities of California’s long range energy efficiency goals.
So, did you know:
- The AIA has not had a working relationship with the California Energy Commission for thirty years.
- The CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission consider practicing architects lacking in energy efficiency knowledge and skills.
- PG&E is creating an extensive energy efficiency training program for architects, because of the insufficient energy efficiency education provided to students in all California NCARB accredited institutions.
- Architects are not included among the approved professionals in the statewide Energy Upgrade California program.
- The Savings By Design Energy Efficiency Integration Awards, given independently of but in parallel with the annual AIACC Design Awards, challenge the absence of such criteria in the AIACC awards.
- The general public believes that LEED certification ensures energy efficiency, yet the first LEED for Homes Platinum House in Berkeley and has proven, in an LBNL Deep Energy Retrofit Study, to be a poor example of energy efficient design.
To initiate a dialogue on energy efficiency in California, the following discussion points are offered:
- Do architects really think the Zero Net Energy (ZNE) ambitions of the State are realistic?
- Who is responsible for the energy efficiency of the buildings architects design; the architect or the energy consultant?
- Is energy efficiency a Health, Safety & Welfare (HSW) issue tied to architectural licensure?
- Will California establish a licensing procedure for energy efficiency consultants, and will architects lose their current responsibility for energy efficiency HSW?
- Will the California Architectural Board start requiring energy efficiency continuing education for architects?
- Will the CEC establish a certification process for a Building Performance Architect, as they have for a Building Performance Contractor?
- If architects lose the HSW responsibility for energy efficiency, will the exterior appearance of buildings become the purview of a new energy efficiency engineering profession?
Thank you for your interest; we look forward to your comments.
Pingback: Energy Efficiency Requirements and the Future of Architectural … | Self Sufficiency | Home Efficiency
Daniel Weaver
Hi Paul,
Great article. I had one quick question regarding the following bullet point:
“Architects are not included among the approved professionals in the statewide Energy Upgrade California program.”
Can you explain this a bit further? What current designation/training would an architect have to go through in order to become an “approved professional”?
Paul Welschmeyer
Daniel,
I forgot to mention the BPI certified Home Performance Contractor, which is a national certification. When EUC incentive program was set-up, California did not have its certification process for Home Performance Contractor finalized, so the EUC program adopted the BPI standard for contractors participation. This may be another explanation of “approved professional”, allowing for the State certified Home Performance Contractor to participate in EUC.
The main point is that the architects are not currently being considered.
Paul
Myrle McLernon
Paul:
I am one of those “petite” firms and would like further information on what training an Architect would need specifically to become an “Approved Professional.” I am used to using consultants on larger projects but the majority of my recent work is either renovation or new small footprints.
The thought that an Architect is not capable of performing energy analysis to validate their building ‘s form and function is very disappointing, it is part of what we should be doing every day, just as ADA has become a common element in our work.
Many of us are up to the challenge of new information, it keeps our design process evolving forward and maintains our social responsibility to provide usable spaces for people.
Paul Welschmeyer
Daniel,
The State envisioned their incentive program for California’s existing housing stock, (Energy Upgrade California, EUC) with the primary intent to improve the thermal performance / comfort of participating homes by 20% to 40%, and also assumed that the majority of these homes would not include additions and alterations to them. So, this meant a licensed architect would not be required in order to obtain building permits for the work; permits could be obtained by the Home Owner or Contractor. In order for the State to insure that the Energy Efficiency (EE) work would be executed and tested to meet the thermal performance expectations of the project, they needed to properly train and certify interested contractors to do this work, which resulted in the certified designation of Home Performance Contractor, as granted by CALCerts.
Since such a small portion of single family residential work in California actually requires an architect, the State did not include the architectural profession. Now, EUC does allow additions and alterations to structures, just as long as 20% to 40% EE is obtained for the entire structure (whole house). Well, for residential architectural firms, additions and alterations could account for 100% of their work load over the past years, and are currently not allowed to be considered an “approved professional”. In doing so, the State has lost the potential advocacy and skill of the architectural profession.
The current work-around for an architectural firm to participate in the EUC program is to also be a certified HERS II Rater. There is no conflict of interest for an architect to perform a HERS II rating on an existing house, redesign it and perform the final HERS II rating at the conclusion of construction, because the architect is not constructing the structure. To resolve this conflict of interest issue inherent in relying on the Contractor to be the “Approved Professional”, the State created the Home Performance Contractor certification, which allows the Contractor to self-certify their work.
So, to try to explain the term “approved professional”, I think these words were crafted to allow other construction industry professional to someday be part of the Energy Upgrade California program.
The AIA should be advocating for inclusion in the EUC program!
Paul
Pingback: Energy Efficiency Requirements and the Future of Practice in … | Self Sufficiency | Home Efficiency
Patricia McBrayer
Hi Paul,
Great article – a nice summary of the information you presented at the Palo Alto City Hall last week. It was a motivating presentation – thank you. I hope that your rallying cry is heard, and acted upon, by many in the profession.
To continue the discussion, here is my input on your topics for discussion:
Do architects really think the Zero Net Energy (ZNE) ambitions of the State are realistic?
Yes and No. Yes, if we take responsibility for energy efficiency and full-service practice seriously for all project types, educate ourselves accordingly, have clients that expect, demand, and are willing to pay for that level of service, and build a network of construction professionals who can implement appropriately. No, if architects continue to limit their level of service, if clients are not educated to understand, value, demand, and pay for full service, or if our design detailing and specifications are not fully implemented in the field by a network of equally passionate construction professionals. It’s going to take a sea change for Net Zero to become a standard across the industry even within my life-time, but I am an idealist and I think we can get there, or pretty darn close.
Who is responsible for the energy efficiency of the buildings architects design; the architect or the energy consultant?
By responsible, do you mean liable? If so, I don’t feel competent in addressing that. However, if by responsible you mean who should take the lead on energy efficiency because it’s important, indeed the future of the industry, it must be a three/four pronged approach if we are to reach net-zero goals: Architects, Contractors, and Building Owners / Users must all recognize their part in the energy efficiency puzzle and act accordingly. I advocate for Architects to take the lead, as full-service practitioners.
Is energy efficiency a Health, Safety & Welfare (HSW) issue tied to architectural licensure?
It is a HSW issue and should be tied to licensure. Our personal and environmental health and welfare depend on reduction of the use of fossil fuels.
Will California establish a licensing procedure for energy efficiency consultants, and will architects lose their current responsibility for energy efficiency HSW?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Architects must step up to bat and take the lead. Energy efficiency can not be a lipstick on the pig approach, it must be integral with design if we have a hope of reaching Net Zero goals. How does one even begin to site or mass a structure for best performance if one is not thinking of energy efficiency, as well as the multitude of other design criteria that must all be balanced in each and every project, from the first napkin sketch.
However, we also have to recognize that not all architects have the interest or aptitude to take this on to a level of best performance. Particularly for small firms and solo-practices, we may need options like a certified energy efficiency consultant – not ideal, but better than an unregulated environment where anyone can call themselves an energy consultant.
Will the California Architectural Board start requiring energy efficiency continuing education for architects?
Let’s hope so. We already have to take accessibility continuing education. Given that those regulations haven’t changed substantially in a while, it’s time for the continuing education requirement to respond to the regulatory changes taking place or anticipated to take place in the two-year renewal cycle.
Will the CEC establish a certification process for a Building Performance Architect, as they have for a Building Performance Contractor?
Let’s hope so. At least in the short term, until responsibility for energy efficiency gains traction and eventually becomes the standard, rather than the exception. It would be a positive step for those architects who wish to distinguish themselves in the marketplace in this regard. It would provide an excellent means to educate and market to Building Owners, and to build that network with like minded construction professionals.
If architects lose the HSW responsibility for energy efficiency, will the exterior appearance of buildings become the purview of a new energy efficiency engineering profession?
It’s going to be a bit of the wild, wild west for a while. When we had to make significant changes to our public buildings to address accessibility, the buildings did change in some very visible ways. We all take ramps and rails, closed risers, large bathroom stalls, etc. for granted now (although I do lament the demise of those beautiful floating modernist planes in contemporary public buildings). Energy efficiency deals with the building siting, massing, envelope, detailing, systems, and specifications. It has potential for much bigger impact, depending on how stringent the requirements become, and to what degree architects take responsibility for addressing them directly, whether or not an independent certified professional is required to sign off on the design.
This dialog is so critical. Thank you for initiating it. Keep us posted on how to stay involved and support your efforts as liaison.
Richard Schoen, FAIA-E, LEED-AP
Excellent development of energy-conserving design challenges confronting the Practice (much less appropreate integration of renewable energy technologies.)
One thing is certain, NZB buildings will require intelligent application of passive solar design. Strategies as simple as “direct gain”, “indirect gain”, and isolated gain” which… together with energy storage in the fabric of the building, will have to be understood once more. As a “UCLA architectural reseach professor emeritus” graduate seminar and design studio content developer and teacher of those concepts over a 45 year period, I must sadly report that after sitting in on end-of-year design studio juries at Columbia two years ago , integration of those concepts into final projects appeared – at that time, to be perfunctory at best. In reality, that is as it always has been, despite valient efforts to integrate those issues into the design program, by educators at ASU, Univ of Arizona, and University of New Mexico. Now may be the time to re-examine that failed marriage once more.. possibly at the CCAIA or even natonal AIA level. I plan to sit in on final end of year design studio juries at UCLA in hopes of finding a different outcome this year.