• Save
Analyzing Post Occupancy Performance: A Replicable Model for Engaging Stakeholders
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Analyzing Post Occupancy Performance: A Replicable Model for Engaging Stakeholders

on

  • 1,403 views

Analysis of the post- occupancy performance of LEED projects in Illinois.

Analysis of the post- occupancy performance of LEED projects in Illinois.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,403
Views on SlideShare
657
Embed Views
746

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 746

http://www.cntenergy.org 744
http://184.154.132.242 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

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

Analyzing Post Occupancy Performance: A Replicable Model for Engaging Stakeholders Analyzing Post Occupancy Performance: A Replicable Model for Engaging Stakeholders Presentation Transcript

  • Analyzing Post Occupancy PerformanceA Replicable Model for Engaging Stakeholders
  • Study Overview• Analysis of the post- occupancy performance of LEED projects in Illinois – Regional focus - Energy use - Greenhouse gas emissions - Water use* - Health and productivity impacts* – Broad scope of metrics - Construction costs* - Operating costs* – Multiple years of data - Occupant comfort* - Commute transportation*• Collaboration between 5 regional partners• Funded by Grand Victoria Foundation and Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation
  • Thank you to the 51 participating projects• 20 North Michigan • McDonalds Corporation World Headquarters• 350 West Mart Center building• Bolingbrook High School • Merchandise Mart• Center for Neighborhood Technology office • Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance• Center on Halsted • Oak Park Public Works Center• Chicago Transit Authority headquarters office • Orland Park Police Department• Children’s Discovery Museum • Pepper Construction Specialty Group Office• Chipotle – Gurnee Mills • Pingree Grove Police Facility• Curran Group corporate headquarters • Prudential Plaza• Evelyn Pease Tyner Interpretive Center • USGBC – Illinois office• Farr Associates office • Wight & Company office• HOK Chicago office • Wrigley Global Innovation Center• Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation • Ziegler office• Kohl Childrens Museum …And those that requested anonymity
  • Take Home Messages• The focus on sustainability should not stop after the design and construction phase• You cannot improve what you do not measure• A building’s best benchmark is its own performance• Ongoing performance evaluations should provide relevant and actionable feedback to building owners, operators and occupants Photo by Scott Shigley
  • Participant Overview• 51 projects in Chicago, suburbs and central Illinois• Size ranges from 971 to 4,200,000 square feet• Variety of LEED Systems, certification levels and principal building activities• Shared at least 12 months of energy utility data LEED System LEED Certification Principal Building Activity
  • Definition: Energy Use Intensity (EUI)• A common metric for comparing energy use because allows for comparison between buildings with different: - size - time frame - weather conditions• Similar to the miles per gallon rating of automobiles• A lower number is better• To calculate: • Gather full year(s) worth of energy usage data • Convert all fuels to same unit (kWh, therms, ton hours, etc → kBtu) • Weather normalize (if energy use includes heating or cooling) • Divide by project square footage Expressed as kBtu / sf / year
  • Definition: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)• Resource of the Energy Information Association (www.eia.doe.gov)• Provides information of building characteristics, energy consumption and expenditures• CBECS building profile is very different than this study • Building size • Principal building activity (PBA) • Sample size• Best comparison is own energy use over time
  • Results: Energy Use Whole Energy Use Projects Partial Energy Use Projects 77% of the tenant spaces64% of these whole energy use projects are at or are below benchmark ofbelow CBECS Midwest benchmark of 99 kBtu/sf/year 38 kBtu/sf/year
  • EUI by Principal Building Activity 250 Building Activity: • Mixed Use 200 • Office (partial energy use) EUI (kBtu/sf/yr) • Office (whole energy use) 150 • Public Assembly • Public Order & Safety 100 The PBAs are listed alphabetically 50 here and intentionally unidentified in graph to preserve project anonymity. 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E• Range of EUI narrows when comparing projects with similar building activities• There is a statistically significant difference between some building types • Group A has a lower mean EUI than groups C, D and E • Group C has a lower mean EUI than group E
  • EUI by LEED NC EA credit 1Projects that prioritize energy efficiency during design and construction are likely toperform better, from an energy standpoint, than projects that do not focus onenergy efficiency or choose to prioritize points in other LEED categories.
  • Results: Financial Green Premium Cost of Project Green Premium ($/ft2) ($/ft2) after incentives ($/ft2)Sample size 23 15 10Median $154.93 $5.00 $3.81Minimum $0.23 $0.0 $0Maximum $665.00 $107.00 $23.59 • Optional, 34 projects responded to at least one question • Wide variation can be attributed to - Project goals - Principal building activity - Project scope • Operating costs: 9 noted decrease, 1 noted increase (n=19) • Infrastructure costs: 6 noted decrease, 10 noted no change (n=18)
  • Results: Health and Other Benefits• Optional, 27 projects responded to at least one question• Most projects not tracking health and other benefits of their LEED building• Staff recruitment: 4 noted positive impact, 13 noted no impact (n=24)• Building complaints: 4 noted a decrease, 1 noted an increase, 15 noted no impact (n=22)• Absenteeism: 1 noted a decrease, 5 not tracking this (n=22)• Sick days: 1 noted a decrease, 11 noted no change (n=18)• Staff turnover: 0 reported a change, 3 noted that it is not Courtesy of Wight & Company being tracked (n=13)
  • Results: Occupant Comfort Survey• Optional, 11 projects participated• 33 questions, most asking respondents to rank aspects of the work environment on a 5 point scale• Occupant satisfaction is high, especially in regards to lighting
  • Results: Employee Commute Survey (1)• Optional, 13 projects participated• 18 questions with a variety of formats• Commute distance: 0.1-197 miles, medians ranged from 3.5 – 22 miles• Transportation Energy Intensity (TEI): median of 36.8 kBtu/employee/day• Comparison with Alternative Transportation Credits: – Public Transportation Access: 9/11 earned and used at 9/9 – Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms: 6/11 earned and used at 6/6 – Parking Capacity: 8/11 earned and used at 8/8
  • Summary• Most participants perform better, from an energy standpoint, than conventional commercial interiors and buildings• Projects that prioritized energy efficiency in their LEED strategy generally performed better, exhibiting lower energy use per square foot.• If comparing energy use to other buildings best to compare to projects with similar principal building activities• Wide variation in construction costs• Health and other benefits are not well documented but survey participants indicate that they are comfortable with the space and satisfied with their commute
  • Take Home Messages• The focus on sustainability should not stop after the design and construction phase• You cannot improve what you do not measure• A building’s best benchmark is its own performance• Ongoing performance evaluations should provide relevant and actionable feedback to building owners, operators and occupants Photo by Scott Shigley
  • Thank you If you have additional questions please contact:Doug Widener at dwidener@usgbc-illinois.org , 773.245.8300 x201Kathryn Eggers at keggers@cntenergy.org, 773.269.4001 Full report available at www.usgbc-illinois.org and www.cntenergy.org http://www.usgbc-illinois.org/?page_id=2905 and http://www.cntenergy.org/2011/09/27/investing-in-energy-efficiency-pays/
  • EUI Compared With CBECS Building Activity 62% of whole energy use projects are performing better, from an energy use standpoint, than other US commercial buildings with the same principal building activity
  • EUI Compared With Energy Models• 60% of the projects are performing better (a lower EUI) than their baseline model• 36% are performing better (a lower EUI) than their design model
  • Results: Water Gal/year Gal/sf/year Gal/employee/dayMedian 1,279,000 6.9 9.2Minimum 13,000 0.74 1.9Maximum 36,809,080 194.9 224.1• Optional, 18 projects shared water use data• No national benchmark available• As with energy use we see wide variation likely because – Building activity, hours etc will impacts water use – Some projects reported water used for landscaping, others did not
  • Results: Employee Commute Survey (2)• Commute distance: 0.1-197 miles, medians ranged from 3.5 – 22 miles• Transportation Energy Intensity (TEI): estimate of average energy use per employee commuting to the building TEI Annual TEI Transportation Emissions (kBtu/employee/day) (kBtu/year) (lbs CO2e/ employee/day) Median 36.8 770,115.7 9.7 Minimum 14.4 54,147.0 3.0 Maximum 284.7 3,757,864.2 44.1• Comparison with Alternative Transportation Credits: – Public Transportation Access: 9/11 earned and used at 9/9 – Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms: 6/11 earned and used at 6/6 – Parking Capacity: 8/11 earned and used at 8/8