Tag: energy

Updated Title 24 Requirements for Nonresidential Fenestration

by .
in: AIACC / 0 Comments
duty_img2

In California, building efficiency standards are updated on a three-year cycle. The most recent update is set to take effect in January 2014. In an editorial last summer, The Sacramento Bee called the changes implemented in this revision “historic,” because they will vastly improve the efficiency of California’s buildings.

Among the revisions is one that will affect commercial fenestration. The new standard will update the allowable methods for demonstrating energy code compliance for site-built fenestration on nonresidential projects.

Under the new standard, the National Fenestration Rating Council’s (NFRC) Component Modeling Approach (CMA) will be one of two compliance options for U-factor and solar heat gain requirements for nonresidential buildings with more than 1,000 sq. ft. of site-built windows and other fenestration. The other option will remain the default values from the California Energy Commission (CEC). This is a significant expansion of the CMA option from the compliance approaches currently in effect, which require NFRC’s CMA or the CEC’s default values for nonresidential buildings with more than 10,000 square feet of site-built fenestration. Next year, CMA will become the preferred option for many more nonresidential projects.

Benefits of CMA
NFRC, a non-profit organization that rates the energy performance of windows and other fenestration products, created CMA with the goal of simplifying code compliance for site-built or -assembled fenestration. CMA uses a software program that calculates energy performance ratings for nonresidential fenestration. The program allows users to create a product on their computers using performance data from pre-approved glazing, frame, and spacer components to generate whole-product ratings. Once the preliminary ratings have been certified, NFRC issues a single CMA Label Certificate that lists the energy performance ratings for all NFRC-rated products on a given project. This document can be used to demonstrate that the ratings meet energy code requirements.

It has been proven that using CMA instead of CEC’s default values can provide an increase in energy compliance margins. A study in California in 2010 compared CMA values to the CEC’s default and equation-based values, running simulations on eight building models under conditions similar to each of California’s 16 climate zones. The study’s results demonstrated that fenestration modeled with the CMA program could provide an increase in compliance margins by 11.7 percent over the default calculation methods.

With the changes to Title 24’s compliance approaches for site-built nonresidential fenestration, more architects and builders will turn to CMA to demonstrate compliance with energy requirements for windows and other fenestration. To learn more about NFRC’s CMA program, please visit www.nfrc.org/CMA/Default.aspx.

 

Energy Tax Deductions for Primary Designers

by .
in: AIACC / 0 Comments
architecture, business, tax, energy


§179D of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides energy tax deductions for investments in “energy efficient commercial buildings” that are designed to increase the efficiency of energy-consuming functions. For government owned buildings, the person(s) primarily responsible for designing the building or project may be able to claim these deductions. The Primary Designer may qualify for deductions of $.60 per square foot for energy efficient lighting design. $.60 per square foot for HVAC and $.60 per square foot for building envelope, creating a potential deduction of $1.80 per square foot that may be directly taken by the designer. This is described in IRS Notice 2006-52 and amplified by IRS Notice 2008-40. Further clarification is given in IRS Notice 2012-22.

Any of those who participated in the design may derive the benefit for the “pass-through” of the incentive/deduction. It was the intent of Congress that public entities design and retrofit to the standard of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. Because this Standard mandates specific and particular attention to efficiencies, Congress elected to provide a tax-deduction “Allocation Pass-Through” to the primary designer(s).

With the help of a tax advisor, the Primary Designer may look at going back to “open” tax years (three years from date of filing to amend a tax return), which may result in an IRS refund for overpayment of taxes with interest. A thorough analysis of each taxpayer’s scenario by an advisor experienced in §179D is advantageous for determining the best approach and claiming the maximum deduction allowed under the law.

It is urgent for primary designers to evaluate open tax years, as the §179D Tax Deductions will become unavailable once the open year closes. Primary designers MUST file an amended return to claim the deduction for open years and may not file Form 3115 “Change of Accounting” form to claim the deductions per new ruling by the IRS.
__________
Information provided by Capital Review Group, a multi-disciplined energy and incentives solutions leader that stays current on green-energy tax incentives, IRS compliance regulations, and energy strategies including renewables.

 

Water is Energy

by .
in: arcCA 10.2 / 0 Comments

arcCA 10.2, water, energy, watsonville water resource

City of Watsonville Water Resources Center, WRNS Studio, all photos by Bruce Damonte


Water is one of the most precious resources we have, and we have to be mindful of its use. Although the world is 70 percent water, 97 percent of that is salt water, and 1.5 percent of the remaining amount is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. Currently, 1.1 billion people lack access to fresh water, and 2.4 billion lack adequate sanitation. Meanwhile, Americans extract 3,700 billion gallons of water per year—more than what is returned to the natural system.

In the United States, we use almost half of those gallons for thermoelectric power generation. Agricultural irrigation consumes another third. Water use in and around buildings accounts for about 47 billion gallons per day, or 12 percent. Likewise, 70 percent of the cost of water is tied to cleaning and transporting it, both of which require a significant amount of energy. Architects may not generally have much influence over the agriculture industry, but we have a significant role to play—not just in reducing that 12 percent of water used in buildings and their landscaping, but also in cutting energy use and in the process saving even more water. Especially 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.

Like most architecture firms, WRNS Studio has known for a long time that water is a critical resource that needs more attention. Designing the City of Watsonville Water Resources Center recently in Watsonville, California, however, made us even more aware of the facts—and the urgent need to find better solutions in designing and constructing buildings to conserve water.

The Pajaro Valley’s Water Crisis
The Pajaro Valley encompasses all of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties— 79,600 acres, including agricultural land and the growing city of Watsonville. The valley’s agricultural economy produces $530 million in annual revenue but also consumes 85% of the county’s water. And 95% of that water is pumped from aquifers. Pajaro Valley currently pumps 69,000 acre-feet per year. That number is expected to increase to 80,000 acre-feet per year within the next three decades.

The combination of excessive pumping and severe drought conditions has led to salt water intrusion into the aquifers, which are below sea level and continue to pull water from the Pacific Ocean inland. To halt seawater intrusion, the water supply for agriculture would have to be restricted to 12,200 acre-feet/year—an 80 percent reduction, at an annual loss of $372 million to the economy.

Studies showed that one way to resolve this situation was to treat and recycle wastewater. So the City of Watsonville built a water recycling plant next to the city’s water treatment plant, providing recycled water to farmers throughout the coastal areas of southern Santa Cruz and northern Monterey counties. The wastewater treatment plant recharges the region’s aquifer with 4,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation annually and significantly reduces wastewater discharges into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

The City of Watsonville hired us to design the water resources center as a functional, educational, and visual extension of the water recycling plant it supports, consolidating three different city and county water departments into a workspace that would allow collaboration on issues of water management, conservation, and quality in the Pajaro Valley. The program included administrative offices, a regional command center, and a water quality lab. In addition, the building, its systems, and its surrounding land are intended to educate the public through exhibition and guided tours on the issues of water, energy management, and air quality.

Telling the Story of Water
The building’s architecture teaches in a variety of ways. The conference rooms were designed with community use in mind, and the facility hosts frequent tours for schoolchildren. The water resource center’s systems and controls are all visible, and almost every component of the building has a water-related story behind it.

Rather than channeling rainwater invisibly into a gutter system, the building allows rain to flow off of the roof, down rain chains, and into swales, where it is carried to retention basins, detained, and treated prior to infiltrating the groundwater system. This strategy makes the intersection of buildings and water explicit.

The water feature relies entirely on recycled water. During California’s dry season, the native son. While another client may have objected to these aspects on aesthetic grounds, our clients embraced them because they tell the truth about our particular climate. Working on this project really drove home for us how much the standard approach to design tends to conceal the natural processes of water and climate.

Placing Water at the Center
In initial discussions with the client, we decided that all design decisions had to tie back to water use. Whenever possible, the building and its landscaping reveal an underlying focus on water as a finite, invaluable resource. Because our clients were motivated to save water as much as possible, they pushed us to rethink our assumptions and dig deeper. That meant applying an unusual level of scrutiny to the design. Some things were obvious. The radiant floor is a closed-loop system, using the same water to heat and cool the building. The facility has low-flow faucets and showers.

But beyond those measures, for each material that we considered, we asked, “Where does it come from? How is it made? How much energy and water does it take to make it? Can we live without it?” Because our clients are steeped in the technical aspects of water, they could provide extensive information about the composition of water, water quality, and the costs of water, which informed the decisions of our mechanical and plumbing engineers. The structural engineer identified ways to construct the building with fewer materials. By reducing the amount of wood by 50% compared to a conventional structural solution, we saved on the water and energy required to produce that wood. The wood, which comes from California redwood trees owned by the city and slated for fire hazard clearance, was custom milled eight miles from the project site and incorporated into the building’s rain screen cladding system.

Staying true to the larger mission—raising consciousness about the whole process of water—has changed the way we work. While we incorporated water conservation on past projects, we now approach each new project with water as one of the defining issues for the site and the building. We ask ourselves, “Where does it flow or land on the site? How will it re-enter the ecosystem? Where can we conserve and recycle?”

Pajaro Valley’s aquifer was drained because California consumes water in a way that isn’t sustainable. The water recycling plant and the water resources center are trying to raise awareness not just about recycled water, but also about the ways we live. After all, the cost to bring in recycled water is higher than the cost of drawing on the aquifer. When we all use water more resourcefully, recycling won’t be necessary. Architects have a key role to play in telling this story.

 

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.