Green codes and standards: Which ones should you use?

By Ron George,CPD,
President, Ron George Design & Consulting Svcs.

Many new building projects are being advertised in the various trade publications as being sustainable, as receiving an award for meeting the requirements for an environmentally friendly building or for being green. Being “green” means different things to different people. Kermit the frog is green in a different way, although he probably lives a pretty green lifestyle. Our ancestors and the American Indians could be classified as green. They lived in log cabins and teepees, and they used only the rainwater they collected and whatever resources they needed to survive. They had a very small carbon footprint.

Looking at pictures of the buildings that are receiving awards, I notice that they often have a lot of large, open spaces, with almost all glass on the exterior walls and, many times, with curved exterior walls. The articles always explain that, because of the amount of glass on the exterior, these buildings save money on lighting costs. I wonder whether the calculated amount of energy saved on lighting is more than surpassed by the additional heating and cooling loads that would be required for a building with properly insulated walls and normal sized windows.

I have worked on many buildings with curved walls and corridors. It seems that in almost every one of them there is lots of wasted and unusable building space that must be heated and maintained over the life of the building. There are also additional costs associated with the unusual design features; odd angled corners in rooms leave lots of wasted space that doesn’t seem to work out for furnishings or the building’s piping, ductwork and equipment layout. It seems that a significant portion the square footage of these so-called “green” buildings is wasted with inefficient floor plan designs.

The object of the award points systems is to encourage energy efficient designs for buildings that will cost less to build and operate. Builders get points for using local materials and energy efficient equipment. One project I worked on utilized a central chilled-water distribution system for a housing project, just because the builder would get points for using a chilled-water system. No chilled water, no points. In that case, the points system was driving the design. I sometimes scratch my head and wonder how builders came up with the designs, and I wonder about the points system that allows a few of the higher award winners to be such obviously inefficient designs.

I remember attending a seminar on high-rise plumbing design. The speaker was explaining how he had designed a recent high-rise building. I asked whether he would be covering such issues as booster pump selections, the maximum allowable pressure zones in a high-rise building based on the minimum desirable pressure on the top floor and the maximum allowable pressure on a lower floor in order to eliminate the use of pressure reducing valves and re-pressurization pumps that waste energy. I also asked whether he would be covering high-rise domestic hot water system circulation. The speaker had a “deer in the headlights” look and said, “This is how the developers and contractors I work with want to do it, because it’s cheaper. If I don’t do it their way, they will go to someone else.”

Establishing pressure zones would eliminate pressure reducing valves, which are a maintenance nightmare, on all the lower floors. The energy savings from eliminating these valves, which I refer to as “energy wasting valves,” pays for itself in a few short years. Having one booster pump at the base of a fifty-story building, using pressure reducing valves on all the lower floors, is like driving your car down the street with your foot firmly pressing the gas pedal all the way to the floor and controlling your speed with the brake pedal. The pump is like the engine; lots of fuel will be used if the accelerator is on the floor. The pressure reducing valves are like the brakes, which will wear out fast and often if the car engine is always racing at full speed. When the brakes wear out, the speed increases or, in this case, when the pressure reducing valve wears on the seat there will be increases in pressure well above the code-allowed 80 pounds per square inch.

A single pressure booster system wastes an enormous amount of energy. A more efficient design is to install a pressure booster for each pressure zone, which would be four or five stories, depending on the floor-to-floor height and the available street pressure. A four or five zone system can reduce the horsepower consumption by about 75 percent with triplex or quadraplex booster pump packages. Multiplexing pumps significantly reduces the horsepower of the pumps needed to meet demand. Adding additional pumps to each booster pump system allows smaller pumps.

The speaker said, “Cost was the driving factor. The developer does not care about energy or operating costs.” The building design was not addressing energy savings and the additional building maintenance costs for the life cycle of the building; it was only covering first cost for the developer, so that he can get it built cheap, sell it and move on and let the buyer and tenants deal with the poor design that will lead to excessive energy use, poor performance and high maintenance costs.

Most points systems for energy efficient buildings do not cover many of these high-rise plumbing design issues. I have seen terribly inefficient high-rise building designs marketed as green and environmentally friendly. It seems like it’s all talk or marketing hype and no action. Whether it’s part of a green or environmentally friendly points system or not, reducing a building’s overall energy consumption should be the ultimate goal.

Reducing energy consumption usually has a minor additional first cost associated with more efficient design, which will pay for itself many times over by lowering energy and operating costs, saving energy and increasing the reliability of the system. Many standards and prescriptive- and performance-based programs set benchmarks to give building owners, facility managers and engineers’ energy reduction goals to prevent them from committing to developer-driven poor designs.

A few examples of green and environmentally friendly codes, standards and programs include: Energy Star, LEED-EBOM Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Building Operation and Maintenance; ASHRAE 189.1 Standard for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings; the International Green Construction Code (IgCC); The IAPMO Green Plumbing & Mechanical Code Supplement for use with all construction codes and the most recent ISO 50001 Standard on Energy Management Systems.

With energy one of the most critical challenges facing the international community, the publication this year of ISO 50001 will affect design of energy efficient buildings. It is estimated that the standard could have a positive impact on some 60 % of the world’s energy use. ISO 50001 will provide public and private sector organizations with management strategies to increase energy efficiency, reduce costs and improve energy performance. The standard is intended to provide organizations with a recognized framework for integrating energy performance into their management practices. Multinational organizations will have access to a single, harmonized standard for implementation across the organization with a logical and consistent methodology for identifying and implementing improvements.
ISO 50001 is intended to accomplish the following:

• Assist organizations in making better use of their existing energy-consuming assets.
• Create transparency and facilitate communication on the management of energy resources.
• Promote energy management best practices and reinforce good energy management behavior.
• Assist facilities in evaluating and prioritizing the implementation of new energy-efficient technologies.
• Provide a framework for promoting energy efficiency throughout the supply chain.
• Facilitate energy management improvements for greenhouse gas emission reduction projects.
• Allow integration with other organizational management systems, such as environmental and health and safety.

Many of the codes and standards listed above have overlapping sections with other standards. Sometimes organizations have worked together to create a standard that overlaps with the original standard. Someone looking to design or build a building that will reduce energy consumption often asks, “Which is the right standard or code to use?” The answer is: They all can be.

There are instances where only one choice exists (for example, in places where the IgCC has been adopted as code). Most often the decision as to which standard to follow is really a matter of which one works best for the building’s and the organization’s needs. Sometimes you are required to follow one standard or another by the local jurisdiction having authority over the project. There isn’t a single one-size-fits-all answer. The goal of a green building standard or guideline is to reduce a facility’s impact on the environment. There are often slight differences as to how each standard or code goes about achieving this goal. It’s up to the individual designer or organization to research which one will work best.
Many people have asked whether it is necessary to get a building certified to a particular standard. While the programs, standards and codes offer a way of measuring buildings, they also give outsiders a simple method of judging how effective a building’s systems are at reducing energy consumption. All an outsider has to do is to be familiar with the standard to know where the building rates. Being familiar with all the programs, codes and standards is difficult, since many of them are being developed at the same time.
The standards are meant as a guide to achieve energy efficiency. You can achieve the benchmarks set forth in a program or standard without actually getting certified. Keep in mind, though, that making claims about how your building rates compared to a certain standard without officially achieving said standard can backfire and cause criticism if your building doesn’t actually perform to the requirements in the standard.

Are there energy efficiency police that will audit your utility bills? That is not likely. One seminar I attended pointed out that one of the problems associated with many building rating systems is that there is no one to back up the claims except the person who sends in the paperwork. If you decide not to get certified, you should still get your building commissioned. You may think you’re doing everything right, but commissioning will give you proof that the systems are set and balanced to the point where they are operating efficiently.

Whether or not a building owner chooses to abide by an energy efficiency standard or by a private for-profit organization’s prescriptive measures, achieving as much energy efficiency as possible is a great way to help save money and limit natural resource consumption. There’s nothing wrong with trying to conserve energy. So go, save energy for future generations, and seek out a professional that can design you a “green” building without all the empty promises and empty corners.

 

Ron George is president of Plumb-Tech Design and Consulting Services LLC. He has served as chairman of the International Residential Plumbing & Mechanical Code Committee. Visit www.Plumb-TechLLC.com, email Ron@Plumb-TechLLC.com or phone 734/755-1908.