Tag: California Energy Commission

Energy Efficiency Requirements and the Future of Practice in California

by .
in: Public Policy / 8 Comments
Unintentional Waste Graphic


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.

 

Nearly 2,000 New Bills Introduced by the Legislature this Year

by .
in: Advocacy Issues / 2 Comments

Reviewing the nearly 2,000 new bills introduced by California’s Legislature is like going through a huge pile of mail: is it a nice birthday card with a check, junk mail to be ignored, or, worse, a bill that can’t be ignored? The new bill introduction deadline of Friday, February 24 has come and gone, and the pile is huge: nearly 2,000 new bills have been introduced to address, arguably, more problems than there actually are.

Upon a quick review of some of the introduced bills, we have identified a few that we cannot ignore – and certainly, more will be identified in the coming days. Those of interest to the architectural profession include initiatives to:
1) Enact a sales tax on services
2) Create an Interior Design Practice Act
3) Create Building Standards to reduce vehicle miles traveled

The AIACC Advocacy Advisory Committee will review these three bills, among others, and recommend positions to the AIACC Board of Directors. Please let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.

Sales Tax on Services
AB 1963, by Assembly Member Alyson Huber, would lower the state portion of the existing sales tax on tangible goods to 4%, and impose a new state sales tax of 4% on services. While the AIACC is still reviewing this bill, it strongly appears upon a quick read that the sales tax would apply to architectural services (there are exemptions for medical services, education services, automotive repair services, tax preparation services, legal services, and services relating to agriculture and livestock).

This bill faces an uphill battle to pass the Legislature for a variety of reasons. First, it requires Republican support to meet the 2/3 vote requirement, and Republicans have to date expressed strong, unified opposition to any tax increase. Second, it will compete with a variety of tax measures that are expected to be placed on the ballot, including one supported by the Governor. There already is a strong effort underway to reduce the number of tax proposals that will be placed on the ballot to one, to avoid voter confusion and the expected response of a confused electorate: a “No” votes on all tax measures. And finally, this bill was introduced at the same time a Field Poll was released on the sales tax (see page 5), which showed voters would prefer either no change in the sales tax, or an increase in the existing sales tax, to an expansion of the sales tax to services.

Regardless of the difficulties this bill faces, the AIACC has a standing position to oppose a sales tax on services and will actively lobby against this bill.

Interior Design Practice Act
Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Fiona Ma has introduced AB 2482 to create a Practice Act for Interior Design. This is a proposal that is introduced in California every three to five years; it is part of a nationwide effort led by the American Society of Interior Designers and others who advocate providing interior designers the same legal recognition given to architects and engineers.

The AIACC has historically opposed Interior Design Practice Act efforts, and instead supports the existing state-sanctioned private certification program available to interior designers who meet the education, experience, and examination requirements spelled out in state law.

The AIACC is just beginning its detailed review of AB 2482 and will be working with other groups who in the past have expressed strong reservations to this type of proposal, including the large segment of interior designers who would be economically harmed by this proposal.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
AB 1627, by Assembly Member Roger Dickinson, proposes to require the California Energy Commission to adopt standards for some residential and non-residential buildings “to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by occupants of…buildings within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization.”

This bill allows the standards to affect “physical design factors of the proposed building or proposed modification of the building that impact walkability, bikeability, and transit access for the occupants of the building both onsite and offsite.”

AB 1627 proposes to place into building standards items that affect behavior outside of the building. This would appear to be a new direction for the building code. Do you have thoughts on this to help your colleagues on the AIACC Advocacy Advisory Committee and Board of Directors adopt a response to this bill? If yes, please share your thoughts in the Comments section.

 

How much water does your building use? – 8/8/11

by .
in: AIACC / 2 Comments
AIA, AIA California Council, AIACC, AIACC awards, arcCA, architect, architects, California Energy Commission, heat island effect, Moore Rubel Yudell Architects & Planners, Sproul Student Community Center at UC Berkeley, U.S. Department of Energy, urban design

In the United States, water use in buildings and their surrounding landscapes accounts for about 47 billion gallons per day, or 12 percent of our total water usage. Yet that is only a small piece of the story: fully half of the water we consume is used in the process of electric power generation, and our buildings and the gadgets housed in them are the principal consumers of electricity, with residential and commercial buildings together accounting for over 72 percent of total retail electricity sales in 2007, according to the U.S. Dept. of Energy.

At the same time that water is central to power generation, the California Energy Commission reports that extraction, treatment, conveyance, use (including heating), and disposal of water account for 20% of state electricity use and 30% of natural gas use. Water and energy are bound together, and bound with them are greenhouse gas emissions.

Then, there’s the question of where all that water ends up. As architect and water conservation advocate Geoffrey Holton wrote recently in arcCA (Architecture California), the journal of the American Institute of Architects, California Council (AIACC), “Surface runoff from streets, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces is often full of contaminants, which storm drains distribute into local groundwater, lakes, rivers, and tidal areas. Meanwhile, treated potable water . . . is used once, to flush waste or to wash, and sent immediately to overburdened sewage treatment systems.”

Which is tremendously costly: as David O’Donnell of Los Angeles based TreePeople observed in an earlier issue of arcCA, “One of the ironies of modern urban life is that municipalities spend millions of dollars each year to contain and dispose of stormwater, millions more to acquire the fresh water they need. The irony is especially pronounced in the American West, where scant rainfall can be nonetheless destructive and population centers are often far removed from adequate water supplies.”

In its recently completed Master Plan for the Sproul Student Community Center at UC Berkeley—recipient of the 2010 Honor Award for Urban Design from the AIACC. Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners proposed an integrated system of water-conserving infrastructure. Green roofs will collect rainwater, which will then be stored in cisterns, for use in landscape irrigation, along with grey water from lavatories and drinking fountains. As Holton notes, “The use of grey water for irrigation does more than cut the use of potable water. By diverting water from the sanitary sewer to the landscape, it draws on the natural filtration capacity of root and soil systems, decreasing the burden on aging infrastructure and helping to replen¬ish groundwater, with associated benefits for local soil, plants, and wildlife.” Green roofs serve other functions as well, helping to insulate the building while reducing the “heat island effect”—the build-up of heat in large expanses of hard materials, like paving and conventional roofing.

Such multi-functional thinking is what architects are best at, imagining how an element that insulates can also conserve water, or how something that reduces solar heat gain can provide a comfortable gathering space sheltered from the rain, advertise a business, and complete a graceful visual composition (think “awning”).

The informed imagination of architects is also crucial for navigating the regulations that govern the reuse of water in buildings. Historically, hygiene, not water conservation, has been the driver of plumbing codes, which, until recently, have discouraged the use of grey water and captured rainwater. This situation is beginning to change, as sustainability in all its forms becomes central to the building regulatory process. But the learning curve can be steep.

Integrating water conservation into all our buildings and landscapes is essential to our future. Pauline Souza, AIA, of WRNS Studio, whose City of Watsonville Water Resources Center won a 2010 Top Ten Award from the AIA Committee on the Environment, sums up the situation well: “In a state like California, where climate change threatens to worsen droughts, growing populations compete with farms for water resources, and the aging infrastructure is having trouble keeping up, every drop counts.”

 

The California Energy Commission Helps Launch New “Energy Upgrade California” Program

by .
in: Featured Photo / 0 Comments
California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency

Photo by Roland Halbe

The California Energy Commission has announced a new tool to help owners of residential and commercial property find resources and incentives to help make energy efficiency improvements. This new resource is available online at energyupgradeca.org. This is a one-stop clearinghouse for information, incentives, rebates, and alternative financing for building improvements. All 58 counties have an individual page that highlights the services and energy efficiency opportunities available.