Linking Energy to Health and Productivity in the Built Environment Evaluating the Cost-Benefits of High Performance Building and Community Design for Sustainability, Health and Productivity

While an ever increasing number of clients and professionals are committed to achieving high levels of energy and environmental standards in new and retrofit projects, the investment community still has not moved beyond first cost decisionmaking. The need for life cycle decisionmaking will depend on multiple national and international efforts to develop the financial algorithms and collect the databases demonstrating the link between high performance buildings and energy, environmental, health and productivity benefits. This paper introduces eBIDSTM, a web-based life cycle decision support tool under development for the cost-benefit analysis of the DOE data base of high performance building components, systems and whole building projects. This DOE interactive tool is linked to BIDSTM the building investment decision support tool that has been developed by the NSF/IUCRC Center for Building Performance at Carnegie Mellon University, with the support of the Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium (ABSIC). The cost-benefit decision support tool presents the results of field case studies, laboratory studies, simulation, and other research, clearly demonstrating the relationship of quality building investments for workstation, central system and whole building/ LEED design approaches to multiple cost benefit factors. The BIDSTM tool is more fully described in “Building Investment Decision Support (BIDS)” published in the Austin Papers – the Best of the 2002 International Green Building Conference (Loftness and Hartkopf 2002). 1. CONFLICTS BETWEEN COST, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY? There are two debates that consistently hamper the drive to improve indoor environmental quality in U.S. buildings. First, many environmentalists argue that improving indoor environmental quality does not cost more (Figure 1a), while many building owners argue that the increased first costs for high performance buildings cannot be considered in today’s market. Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics, Carnegie Mellon 2003 Greenbuild Conference 1 While the first critical moves in environmental design and engineering, including orientation, layout, and the use of passive conditioning systems, may not have to increase first cost, the selection of high performance materials, components and systems will have to increase first cost (Figure 1b). We must be clear: a high performance light fixture, lamp and dimmable ballast will cost more than “the contractors special”yet will always demonstrate a measurable life cycle benefit. As a result, it is critical for the environmental design community – architects and engineers alike – to build the proof sets demonstrating the life cycle value of high performance materials, components and assemblies. Both the computer and the car industry sells quality differences component by component with a ten to one price differential. The building industry sells cost/sq.ft. – with the continued measure of success being the lowest price for the package with no record of the quality of the parts. Figure 1 First Cost and quality of indoor environments The second debate that consistently hampers the drive to improve indoor environmental quality in U.S. buildings is the belief that improving the quality of indoor environments must perforce cost more energy (Figure 2a). While there may be a few challenging conflicts for architects and engineers, the goal of improving indoor environmental quality is actually proving to measurably reduce energy and other environmental costs, and to dramatically improve business performance (Figure 2b). Indeed, the synergies are significant – improved temperature control, air quality, lighting control, and access to the natural environment will result in measurable productivity, health, environment, facility management, churn, waste, emissions, attraction/retention, and energy savings. Nonetheless, the proofs must be collected and documented by the owner/occupant/design or federal and industrial community if consistent first-cost investment in quality buildings are to reap these near and long term cost-benefits. Figure 2 Annual Energy and quality of indoor environm (a) (a) (b) Perceived Investment Choices V al ue IEQ