Tehokas ja kestävä kunta -seminaari 1.10.2009 /Michael Lovejoy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Tehokas ja kestävä kunta -seminaari 1.10.2009 /Michael Lovejoy

on

  • 982 views

Puhujat: Jan Vapaavuori, asuntoministeri; Jukka-Pekka Ujula, kaupunginjohtaja, Porvoo; Michael Lovejoy, Head of Trade Center; Virpi Mikkonen, ohjelman päällikkö, Tekes; Jukka Noponen, ...

Puhujat: Jan Vapaavuori, asuntoministeri; Jukka-Pekka Ujula, kaupunginjohtaja, Porvoo; Michael Lovejoy, Head of Trade Center; Virpi Mikkonen, ohjelman päällikkö, Tekes; Jukka Noponen, ohjelmajohtaja, Sitra; Mikko Kosonen, yliasiamies, Sitra; Kari-Pekka Mäki-Lohiluoma, varatoimitusjohtaja, Kuntaliitto; Mari Kiviniemi, kunta- ja hallitoministeri; Antti Kivelä, ohjelmajohtaja, Sitra; Teppo Sulonen, tietohallintojohtaja; Kimmo Haahkola, toimialajohtaja, Sitra, Ari Mäkinen, talousjohtaja, Turun kaupunki, Antti Kivelä, ohjelmajohtaja, Sitra;
Tilaisuuden videot:
http://youtu.be/Wr8ZLrZ7ywk
http://youtu.be/4pkzBgn1ESE
http://youtu.be/3ur-vIxcTNk
http://youtu.be/jwbGRuZuJb8
http://youtu.be/MreqYtyArvU
http://youtu.be/ptBH8rhUMeM
http://youtu.be/DGZIyGWQIU4
http://youtu.be/15bvs_M16-E
http://youtu.be/UHvE7Vlc2Rw
http://youtu.be/SXtBcvXhNtM
http://youtu.be/zSLY2d9ACY0
http://youtu.be/4JKQmZB23OA
http://youtu.be/Nm40Q4_q04w

Statistics

Views

Total Views
982
Views on SlideShare
982
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Tehokas ja kestävä kunta -seminaari 1.10.2009 /Michael Lovejoy Tehokas ja kestävä kunta -seminaari 1.10.2009 /Michael Lovejoy Presentation Transcript

  • Sustainable Communities: USA BenchmarkingMichael LovejoyFinpro Americas Region, Houston1 October 2009
  • Introduction Finpro has undertaken a study of sustainable building in the USA, focusing on climate change and energy efficiency initiatives in a select group of leading communities that have been referenced to the major European climate zones. Energy & Climate Green BuildingSustainLane™ 2008 Sustainability Rankings 1. San Francisco, CA* 1. Portland, OR 1. Seattle, WA 2. Washington, DC* 1. Portland, OR 3. Atlanta, GA 4. Sacramento, CA 4. Seattle, WA 5. Austin, TX 5. Denver, CO 6. Denver, CO 6. San Francisco, CA* 7. New York, NY 7. Boston, MA 7. Albuquerque, NM 8. Sacramento, CA 7. Las Vegas, NV 9. Austin, TX 7. Omaha, NE 10. Las Vegas, NV * Includes Berkeley, CA, & Baltimore, MD Date © Finpro 2
  • Sustainable Communities MovementThere is „movement‟ underway in the USA, and it is having a profound effectat the community level. [In the USA]…a growing number of grassroots and public sector groups are initiating efforts to simultaneously address environmental, economic, and social issues, In June 2004, the U.S. Council of increase community well-being, and secure Mayors described sustainable the long-term health of human and natural community as “…the synthesis systems. Collectively termed the of environmental stewardship, sustainable communities movement, since economic and community 1990, dozens, if not hundreds, of sustainable development, social equity, communities projects have been initiated in affordable housing, and public cities, counties, and regions across the participation in the governing country. process.” R. Gahin; V. Veleva; M. Hart, “Do Indicators Help Create Sustainable Communities? “ Local Environment, 6 December 2003.Date 3 © Finpro
  • Sustainable Communities MovementFormal community understanding of sustainability emerged in the USAduring the 1990s. Early Milestones in the Sustainable 8 Pillars of a Sustainable Communities Movement Community 1993: Creation of the Presidents 1. A compact complete community Council On Sustainable Development* 2. Low impact transportation 3. Green buildings 1996: U.S. Conference of Mayors & 4. Multi-dimensional landscape the National Association of Counties 5. Innovative utility infrastructure form the Joint Center for Sustainable 6. Healthy local food systems Communities. 7. Facilities / Programs / Process for social health * Sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising 8. Sustainable economic systems the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” Brundtland Commission Source: U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) (United nations), 1987.Date © Finpro 4
  • Sustainable Communities Movement Smart growth & climate change have become the leading sustainability issues among U.S. cities & counties. Top Three Sustainability Issues Smart Growth Principles (Response Percent) 1. Mix land uses 2. Take advantage of compact building Smart Growth 67 % design Climate Change 48 % 3. Create a range of housing opportunities & choices Fiscal Viability 33 % 4. Create walkable neighborhoods Energy Conservation 29 % 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place Transportation 29 % 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural Community Revitalization 24 % beauty, and critical environmental areas 7. Strengthen and direct development Economic Development 19 % towards existing communities Community Engatement 14 % 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices 9. Make development decisions predictable,Habitat & Land Conservation 14 % fair & cost effective Social Justice 14 % 10. Encourage community & stakeholder collaboration in development decisions Energy Independence 5% Source: U.S. EPA / Smart Growth Network Recycling 5% Source: ICMA, Fall 2007 Date © Finpro 5
  • Sustainable Communities MovementWhile the U.S. Federal Government & many State Governments havelagged in the adoption of climate action plans, local communities are takingmatters into their own hands.In 2005, the United StatesConference of Mayors(USCM) unanimouslyadopted the U.S. MayorsClimate ProtectionAgreement, whereby theyagreed that their cities willmeet or exceed the KyotoProtocol on climatechange.Date © Finpro 6
  • Green Building MovementThe U.S. Department of Energy reports that the growth in U.S. buildings‟energy consumption has resulted in carbon dioxide emissions rising fromabout a third of total U.S. emissions in 1980 to almost 40 percent today. Measured Impacts of U.S. Built Environment As a percent of total USA Energy Use 40 % Electricity Consumtion 72 % Natural Gas 55 % Cabon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions 38 % Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 19 % Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 52 % Raw Materials Use 40 % Waste Output 30 % Potable Water Consumption 14 % Source: USGBC & USDOE 2009 estimatesDate © Finpro 7
  • Green Building Movement In response, a green building movement emerged during the early 1990s in the USA, and it is impacting building codes in a growing number of communities today. U.S. Municipal Green Building CodesGreen building codes sprout upacross USAUSA Today, 13 August 2008Theres been a huge groundswell ingreen-building leadership at stateand local levels. Its remarkable,"says Jason Hartke of the U.S.Green Building Council…Hartke attributes the trend tohigher energy costs and climate-change concerns… Source: U.S. GBC, February 2009 Date © Finpro 8
  • Green Building MovementThe impetus behind the movement is frustration with traditional buildingcodes, which are seen as „environmental neutral.‟Definition of Green Building In the USA, Green Buildings can reduce… Energy CO2 Water SolidGreen building is the practice of Use Emissions Use Wastecreating structures and usingprocesses that are environmentally 20* toresponsible and resource-efficient 50** %throughout a building’s life-cycle from 33*** tositing to design, construction, 39** %operation, maintenance, renovation and 40**%deconstruction. This complements theclassical building design concerns of 70**%economy, utility, durability, and comfort.Green building is also known assustainable or high performance * Turner, C. & Frankel (2008), Energy Performance of LEEDbuilding. for New Construction Buildings ** Katz, G. (2003), The Costs & Financial Benefits of Green Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Building *** U.S. GSA Public Building Service (2008), Assessing green building performance Source: U.S. Green Building CouncilDate © Finpro 9
  • Green Building MovementBuilding codes are developed at the national level in the USA by basicallytwo non-profit organizations. They are adopted at the state and local leveland then enforced locally.Status of U.S.Commercial EnergyCodes by State Source: U.S. Department of EnergyDate © Finpro 10
  • Green Building MovementUnfortunately, as codes are improved upon, states & communities lag intheir adoption.Status of U.S.Residential EnergyCodes by State Source: U.S. Department of EnergyDate © Finpro 11
  • Green Building MovementArising out of the green building movement are voluntary national ratingprograms that have been developed by public and private entities. Leading U.S. Green Building Rating Programs Energy Star: A joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy that rates (labels) both building and products for energy efficiency. www.energystar.gov/ The Green Building Initiative‟s GBI Green Globes: Online, point based green rating tool for new commercial buildings that is growing in popularity. www.thegbi.org/green- globes/ The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Model Green Home Building Guidelines: Online, point-based green rating tool for new residential green buildings that is popular with some developers because it is less expensive. www.nahbgreen.org/ USGBC Leadership in in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED): Point based rating tools, covering various building types, and originally based on the UK‟s BREEAM system but modified to make it less cumbersome. www.usgbc.org/LEED/Date © Finpro 12
  • Green Building Movement LEED‟s success is based upon its penetration of the non-residential sector: 20156 cumulative registered projects, summing to 322 million square feet (29.9 million m²). LEED 2009 Rating Systems Levels of CertificationBuilding Lifecycle Certified 40 – 49 points Design Construction Operations Silver 50 – 59 points Gold 60 – 79 pointsSchools, Healthcare, Retail Existing Platinum 80 points and greater BuildingsNew Construction Operations & Maintenance Point RatingCore & Shell (Maximum Possible by Category)Commercial Interiors Sustainable Sites 26 Water Efficiency 10Neighborhood Development* Energy & Atmosphere 35Homes Materials & Resources 14* Under development Indoor Environmental Air Quality 15 Innovation in Design 6 Regional Priority 4 Date © Finpro 13
  • Community Benchmarking IntroductionIn the interest of time, the green building initiatives of five communities willbe reviewed for their different approaches to climate change. 1. Austin, Texas 2. Boston, Massachusetts 3. Portland, Oregon 4. San Francisco, California 5. Berkeley, California Note: Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland are also part of the larger study.Date © Finpro 14
  • Community Benchmarking Austin, TexasIn 1992, Austin, Texas, was the first U.S. city to develop a green buildingprogram, which is located in the City-owned electric utility. In 2007, the Cityadopted a Climate Protection Plan. Austin Climate Protection Plan 2012: City facilities 100% renewable energy 2015: New residential building net-zero energy* [65% above 2002 baseline] 2015: New commercial buildings increase energy efficiency by 75%* 2020: City vehicle fleet carbon neutral 2020: Austin Energy 30% renewable energy 2020: Austin Energy at least 100MW solar 2020: 700MW of new energy efficiency * Developing requirements for existing buildings to have an energy audit & efficiency upgrade when sold.Date © Finpro 15
  • Community Benchmarking Austin, TexasA net-zero energy building produces on-site renewable energy that is equalto or greater than the amount it consumes. Is Austin‟s goal achievable by2015?Net-ZeroFormula Renewable Energy Solar PV Austin Solar Rebate Program Solar Hot Water Wind Turbines • Residential & Commercial = $4.50 per watt • Residential maximum = $13,500 or 80% of Energy Efficiency installation cost Efficient Appliances • Commercial maximum = $100,000 or 80% High SEER AC of installation cost CFL & LED Lighting • For example: “For a typical residence the installation of a one kilowatt solar voltaic system, which is the smallest system Energy Conservation considered practical, is between $6-to-$10 Most Smart Design thousand. Austin Energy will rebate Cost Tight Construction $4500.” Source: Urban Home Austin, Summer 2008 Efficient Better Building www.barleypfeiffer.com/Date © Finpro 16
  • Community Benchmarking Austin, Texas SOL Austin is fully-funded, commercial “sustainable neighborhood” development project with net-zero energy homes. Construction started this past summer. Building‟s Green Profile • Operable windows for passive ventilation and day-lighting, placing the majority of windows on North and South facades and shading whenever possible. • Gerkin Rhino windows, a low-e, double-pane, thermally broken aluminum frame featuring Cardinal 366 glass. • Structurally insulated panels for the walls and, consisting of 3.5" of EPS foam with 5/8" Oriented Strand Board (OSB) laminated on either side, providing a continuous thermalConstruction: Ongoing break, increased R-value, greatly reduce the outside air infiltration and reduce the(2009) construction time by acting as structure, insulation and sheathing all in one system.Design Team: • Geothermal HVAC with seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) of 27 on models with• KRDB (Architects) two stage compressors requiring about half the energy of a conventional HVAC system. A by-product is hot water that can be recovered and used rather than heating water through other means for daily use. • Above efficiency measures working together reduce the total energy demand of house by about 50% of standard construction. Remaining electricity generation comes from polycrystalline photovoltaic arrays installed on the roof of each house, ranging in size from 3-6 Kilowatts depending on the size of the house. • Half of the home to be built offsite, utilizing modular construction in a climate-controlled factory. Date © Finpro 17
  • Community Benchmarking Austin, Texas With respect to energy efficiency, Austin is actively developing a smart grid beyond the current one that was been fully installed this year. The community has established a public-private partnership for design and implementation. Pecan Street Partners • City of Austin • Austin Energy • The University of Texas Austin Technology Incubator • Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce • Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Corporate Partners • Dell • GE Energy • IBM • Intel • Oracle • Cisco SystemsRecent evidence indicates that where an • Microsoftinteractive consumer-to-utility facility exists in • Freescale Semiconductorterms of energy usage, consumers become more • GridPointinvolved in energy efficiency actions. 4 May 2009 © Finpro 18
  • Community Benchmarking Boston, MassachusettsIn conjunction with the adoption of Boston‟s Climate Action Plan in 2007,was the revision of the City‟s building code. Boston Climate Action Plan Article 37 of Boston‟s Building Code requires all major new and rehabilitation constructionImprove Buildings & Structures projects exceeding 50 thousand square feet (4645.152 m²) to demonstrate that they are [Requires] that all new municipal able to qualify for 26 LEED New Construction buildings, City-funded housing, and large private developments meet (NC) points plus four more points that are in higher standards of energy use & accordance with the City‟s priorities – e.g., conservation. transportation, energy, historic preservation, and groundwater recharge. Boston does notOptimize Energy Sources require third party certification – e.g., USGBC – but the Boston Redevelopment AuthorityBalance Transportation System must review and confirm developer‟s certifications.Manage Land See: www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/zoning/ See: www.cityofboston.gov/climate/Date © Finpro 19
  • Community Benchmarking Boston, MassachusettsIn terms of advanced energy efficiency in buildings, Boston is aided by stategovernment, which established the Massachusetts Zero Net Energy BuildingTask Force. Getting to Zero1. Adopt minimum energy performance standards for buildings that, over time, drive continuous improvements in energy efficiency by using the market to identify the most cost effective methods Twenty-year Horizon for meeting those standards.2. Establish a “labeling” system to record the energy efficiency of each residential and commercial building.3. Provide incentives to lower, if not remove, existing financial & regulatory barriers to energy efficiency gains, promote onsite renewable energy, and address the incentive gap between landlord and tenant.4. Develop workforce able to deliver the services that will be critical to the above recommendations. Source: State of Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force, March 2009Date © Finpro 20
  • Community Benchmarking Portland, Oregon In 1993, Portland was the first U.S. City to adopt a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. The current plan‟s 2012 goals are targeted to be met by a proposed „carrot-and-stick‟ („”feebate”) approach to building policy. Proposed City of Portland High Performance Green Building Policy Goals Building Performance Categories•Reduce greenhouse gas emissions thatcause climate change. Commercial & Single-Family• Maximize energy efficiency and cost Multifamily Residentialsavings. New Buildings Feebate Performance• Keep housing and commercial buildings based upon target &affordable over time. building‟s Feebate if not• Decrease consumption of potable water, rating – e.g., metespecially during summer months. Oregon Code,• Increase on-site stormwater LEED ormanagement. Living Building• Reduce waste during construction and Challengeoperation.• Improve indoor environmental quality, Existing Disclose Exploringoccupant health and productivity. Buildings building financing &• Increase the number of local living-wage performance performancejobs. Score score Date © Finpro 21
  • Community Benchmarking Portland, OregonUnlike Austin, Portland is not demanding sustainable new buildings, but it isrewarding achievement and taxing the status quo. New Commercial Buildings New Multifamily Buildings (>465 m2)Feebate Green Minimum Reward or Feebate Green Minimum Reward orOption Building Requirements Fee Option Building Requirements Fee Standards (LEED Standards (LEED Credits) Credits)Reward Living Net-zero $8.65 - Reward Living Net-zero $2.58 - Building energy & water $17.30 per Building energy & water $5.15 per Challenge documentation ft2* Challenge documentation ft2* (1 year) (1 year) LEED 10 energy $3.46 - LEED 10 energy $1.03 - Platinum efficiency & 4 $6.92 per Platinum efficiency & 4 $2.06 per water efficiency ft2 water efficiency ft2 LEED Gold 8 energy $1.73 - LEED Gold 8 energy $0.51 - 3 water $6.92 / ft2 3 water $1.03 / ft2Waiver LEED Silver 5 energy Not Waiver LEED Silver 5 energy Not 2 water Applicable 2 water ApplicableFee None** $1.73 - Fee None** $0.51 - $3.46 / ft2 $1.03 / ft2* 1 m² = 10.7639 ft² Source: City of Portland Office of Sustainable Development** If new construction simply meets current OregonBuilding Code, a fee is charged to the owner.Date © Finpro 22
  • Community Benchmarking Portland, OregonThe long-term goal is to look beyond LEED and establish a simplifiedstandard, with an expanded design challenge, using inspiration and notaccountability as the motivator. The result: The Living Building Challenge.Typical “Code” Better Building High Pursuing RestorativeBuildings Practices Performance Sustainability Buildings* Green Buildings LEED Silver + LEED Platinum Gold The Living Other Standards LEED Certified Building Challenge e.g., Oregon State Net ZeroCurrent Energy Efficiency New Design (SEED),Technologies & Technologies & established inServices 1991 Services* Restorative is were human & natural systems cooperatively support each other indefinitely.Date © Finpro 23
  • Community Benchmarking Portland, Oregon A zero-energy, zero-water development, The Kenton Living Building‟s intent is to change “the way people live & work in a space.”* The cost for this learning experience is twice conventional construction. Kenton Living Building: Key Gray Water Storage Tank + Photovoltaic Array Elements + Inverter Visible Water Gauge Heat Recovery Solar Water Heating Ventilator (HRV) Directionally Tuned Glazing Structurally Insulated Panel Systems (SIPS) Compact Ladder Stud Framing + Dishwasher Blown-in Insulation Gypsum Board (95% Recycled Content) Street Level Dry Well Composting Toilet Pervious Surface Rain Water Storage Tank Salvaged Wood Floor Wet Cleaning Ventless 2-in-1 System Clothes Dryer* Clark Brockman, Sera Architects Basement Reuse: Previous Building Date © Finpro 24
  • Community Benchmarking San Francisco, CaliforniaIn July 1997, The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco wasapproved, establishing sustainable development as a fundamental goal ofmunicipal public policy.Air Quality• All municipal building projects meet specifications that incorporate air-quality concerns (including specifications for the use of integrated pest management).• Vehicle-miles traveled in private automobiles reduced 10%.Energy, Climate Change & Ozone Depletion• Each buildings energy characteristics (such as energy use & insulation) are disclosed when it is listed for sale.• CFC-based cooling & refrigeration equipment in San Francisco reduced by 50%.Solid Waste• City government diverts 60% of its current waste generation.• The salvage & reuse of construction & demolition materials increased.Water & Wastewater• Tax credits & financial incentives in place for water reductions in homes & businesses.• A lake management plan implemented.Date © Finpro 25
  • Community Benchmarking San Francisco, CaliforniaIn 2002, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan, and in 2008, it adopted anaggressive green building ordinance with specific climate action goals. Estimated 2012 Green Building Ordinance Benefits & ResultsCO2 Reductions 60 000 tons of CO2 emissionsEnergy savings 220 000 megawatt hours of powerDrinking water savings 379 million liters of water*Waste & storm water reductions 341 million liters of water*Construction & demolition waste reduction 318 million kilos*Increased recycled material valuations 200 million U.S. dollarsReduced auto trips 540 thousand tripsIncreased green power generation 37 thousand megawatt hours Source: Mayor‟s Task Force on Green Building, 2007*Note: Numbers rounded inconversion from U.S. measuresDate © Finpro 26
  • Community Benchmarking San Francisco, CaliforniaNew ordinance covers newly constructed commercial buildings over 5000 ft²(465 m²) and all new residential buildings, and renovations to areas over25000 ft² (2323 m²) in existing buildings that are undergoing majorupgrades. Required Certification Levels by YearBuilding Type 2009 2010 2011 2012New Large LEED Silver LEED Silver LEED Silver LEED GoldCommercial LEED ChecklistMid-Size LEED Checklist LEED Checklist LEED Checklist plus renewableCommercial energy standardMajor Commercial LEED Silver LEED Silver LEED Silver LEED GoldRenovationsNew High-Rise LEED Certified or LEED Silver LEED Silver LEED SilverResidential 50 GreenPoints*New Mid-Size No Rating 50 GreenPoints 75 GreenPoints 75 GreenPointsResidential (25 GreenPoints)New Small No RatingResidential (units ≤ 50 GreenPoints 50 GreenPoints 75 GreenPoints (25 GreenPoints)4)*GreenPoints is a rating tool developed by California‟s Build It Green organization: www.builditgreen.org .Date © Finpro 27
  • Community Benchmarking Berkeley, CaliforniaEighty-one percent of the citizens of Berkeley voted in November 2006 toset a 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target of 80% (33% by 2020). In June2009, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to adopt the BerkeleyClimate Action Plan. Berkeley Climate Action Plan Sustainable Transportation & Land Use Building Energy Use – Community‟s task is to reduce conventional energy use in every existing Berkeley home, business & institution: • Strive to achieve zero net energy performance in new construction by 2020 • Enhance & lower the cost of energy efficiency services & standards for existing residential & non-residential buildings • Develop a local, clean, decentralized energy supply to meet a larger portion of the community‟s energy needs • Continue to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public buildings • Prepare local residents for job opportunities in the emerging green economy Waste Reduction & Recycling Community Outreach & Empowerment See: http://www.berkeleyclimateaction.org/Content/10058/ClimateActionPlan.htmlDate © Finpro 28
  • Community Benchmarking Berkeley, California Berkeley‟s climate action policies are reflected in its 2009 plan to accelerate the deployment of residential solar PV panels by financing the upfront cost and allowing the homeowner to repay it through a special property tax over 20 years."This program I think Berkeley FIRST Programcould be ourcontribution towardsdealing with global County Tax Collectorwarming and climatechange, and we hope Special Taxes/at the same time, that Assessmentsit will not only deal Special Taxes/ Special Taxes/ CSI Assessmentswith the environmental Assessments Rebate*questions, well alsoput people to work in Solar & Sponsoringthe process." Energy Agency Home Installer Efficiency (City/JPA/ Owner Tom Bates Bonds County) Berkeley Mayor February 2009 Bond Proceeds Bond Proceeds Installation Costs* State of California provides an upfront cash rebate for solar installations under 50kW – e.g., $6.9K on$32K system. The U.S. Federal government also offers a 30% tax credit after the first year. Date © Finpro 29
  • Green Building Market SustainabilityIn field studies conducted by Finpro & Tekes during Spring 2009, thequestion was asked: “Is the sustainable, sustainable?” U.S. Green Building Market ValueMetric 2006* 2008** How Green a Recession? – $12 billion Sustainability Prospects in the (new) U.S. Real Estate industryTotal $130 billion (Renovations) “…current recession will only slow, but not fundamentally alter theCommercial & market shift to sustainable real $4 billionInstitutional estate. Savvy, cash rich investors Office $8.7 billion will find numerous opportunities to capitalize on these trends, even Educational $6 billion during recession, while owners that fail to adapt quickly to the new Healthcare $2 billion standards may find their viabilityResidential $8 billion jeopardized.” Source: RREEF (Deutsche Bank), 2.2009* McGraw-Hill Construction, 2007** 2009 U.S. Construction Report, FMI, December 2008Date © Finpro 30
  • Green Building Market SustainabilityThe media has played a major role in focusing public attention on climatechange in the USA in recent years. September 2005 April 2006 May 2006Date © Finpro 31
  • Green Building Market SustainabilityThe U.S. commercial sector has picked up on the trend. May 2007 April 2007Date © Finpro 32
  • Green Building Market SustainabilityIt‟s taken some time in coming, but a green „mindset‟ is taking root inAmerican consumers. Knowledge & Awareness of Green Are developers paying enough Home Building attention to the environment? 37 % 58,% 31 % 21 % 34,% 8% 3% 7,% No Not Enough, Yes, they are but they are doing enough doing something Source: RCLCO, January 2008 Source: McGraw-Hill, 2007Date © Finpro 33
  • Green Building Market SustainabilityThe same mindset can be found in corporate America.McGraw Hill forecast in 2007 Perceived U.S. Business Benefits tothat 82% of corporate America „Greening‟ Real Estatewould be greening at least 16%of their real estate portfolios Operating cost decreases 8 to 9%*by 2009 and of these Building value increases 7.5%*corporations, 18% would begreening more than 60% of Return on investment 6.6%*their portfolios. improves Source: Greening of Corporate America Occupancy ration increases 3.5%* Smart Market Report Rent ratio increases 3%** Source: USGBC * McGraw-Hill 2008 ** McGraw-Hill 2007Date © Finpro 34
  • Green Building Market Sustainability High-performance and sustainable building codes will lead to innovative models of standardization. Vertical Axis Wind Power Turbines Photovoltaic Solar Power Arrays Electrochromic (Adjustable Tint) Glazing Intelligent Combined Cooling, Heating & Ventilation SystemRegenerative Elevators, Zero VOC (VolatileUsing Less Energy Going Up Organic) Paint& Providing Energy GoingDown Green Roof & Water 100% Recycled Structural Reclamation System Steel UTC Green Building Concept Fuel Cell Rainwater Collection Tank Date © Finpro 35
  • Green Building Market SustainabilityThe sustainable appears to be sustainable. Green building is projected togrow in the USA. U.S. Green Building Materials Demand (billion dollars) % GrowthItem 2003 2008 2013 2008-13Floor Coverings 11.8 22.2 29.1 5.6 Factors Driving U.S. Green Construction MarketConcrete 6.4 9.5 14.3 8.4 1. Unprecedented level ofRoofing 6.5 9.2 10.3 2.3 government initiatives 2. Heightened residential demandWindows 4.6 4.7 9.1 14.0 for green construction 3. Improvements in sustainableDoors 3.3 4.2 5.4 4.9 materials.Other 6.6 7.2 12.3 11.5 Source: U.S. Construction Overview, FMI, 2008Total Demand 39.2 56.9 80.5 7.2 Source: Fredonia Group, 2009Date © Finpro 36
  • Green Building Market SustainabilitySo, what does the U.S. green building market want, and how do they findout about it?PPG Industries May 2009 Survey of U.S. Architect‟s Green Building Product Sourcing* Most important sources of green * 612 Architects Surveyed;95% building product information Confidence Level Manufacturers Websties 76 % Ranking of most important green building product attributes: Internet Searches 59 % 1. Durability 2. Energy Star compliance 3. Life-cycle assessmentManufacturers Sales 4. No- or low-volatile organic 54 % Representative compound (VOC) content 5. Ability to source products Technical Binders 46 % regionally Source: http://corporateportal.ppg.com/PPG/Newsroom/News/20090518.htmDate © Finpro 37
  • Conclusion The Berkeley, California, Office of Energy & Sustainable Development states: “Unilateral policies in small cities have a limited impact; collaborate with other communities and local utility.” East Bay Green Corridor Research Institutions Regional Emerging Green Tech “Cradle to Scale” e.g., University of Companies  RegionalCalifornia at Berkeley; Strategy* Retention of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Green Industries  Professional  Training &  Presence Local Linkages Workforce of Green Government & Referrals Development (Berkeley, Oakland, Suppliers & Services Emeryville,  Research Space  Business Richmond) Needs Assistance  Employment in Emerging  Land Use Policy  Marketing Green Jobs Local Consumer Demand (e.g. Berkeley FIRST Solar Financing Program)* Refers to an incentive process that allows hi-tech startups to evolve from garage labs to full-scale manufacturing. Date © Finpro 38
  • ConclusionClimate action plans and advanced green building codes by the earlycommunity adopters are as much about the localization of sustainable know-how and intellectual capital as anything.“For Portland to remain Cascadia Region Living Building ChallengeAmerica‟s most sustainable Prerequisite Eight: Appropriate Materials/Servicescity, we need our Sourcing Radiusentrepreneurs and engineersto keep innovating and finding ZONE Material or Service Maximum Distancenew ways to push the 7 Ideas 20004 kmenvelope of sustainability.These projects demonstrate 6 Renewable Energy Technologies 14484 kmPortlanders‟ strongcommitment to green building Assemblies that actively contribute to 5 4828 km building performance once installedand sustainable sitedevelopment. Portland‟s true 4 Consultant Travel 2414 kmadvantage is the creativity ofour talented green building 3 Light, low-density materials 1609 kmprofessionals.” 2 Medium Weight and density materials 805 km Mayor Sam Adams City of Portland 1 Heavy, high density materials 402 km April 2009Date © Finpro 39