Net zero buildings cost nothing

"Why did the team not design a no-collapse building, or at least close to it?"

"We could not afford it, but we achieved better than average stability."

This is a summary of a conversation I had with a professional colleague recently regarding a new school building that just received recognition for the "greenness" of its design.  The owner, builder, and design team all celebrated the achievement since it was the first school in the state to be so regarded.  The only difference between the crux of our actual conversation and the quotes above are that my question was not about structural integrity, but rather it went something like this:

"Why did the team not design a fire-proof building, or at least close to it?"

"We could not afford it, but we achieved better than average protection."

As you might guess, that was not quite right either.  Our discussion did not center on structural integrity or fire protection, but rather on the energy footprint of the building.  I have noticed that every time I ask a design team about why they did not exceed the "standard of care" for energy performance, they go back to the cost crutch, even without actually looking at the costs for delivering a building that relies on almost no off-site forms of energy transfer.  If we were to ask the same question about structural integrity or fire prevention, we would never rely on the "we cannot afford it" excuse.  It is fairly easy to understand why:

No one associated with an individual building considers the damaging impacts of energy use to be their responsibility, therefore it is not a priority.

Even local authorities responsible for building codes allow everyone "off the hook" to an extent by creating incrementally better standards, but ones that codify the need for external energy resources for generations to come.  Owners point the finger at municipalities and claim they only have an obligation to meet the code at the time the building is built, designers play loose with their profession's ethics and cite that they must protect health and the environment, but only to the extent required by law, and cities cite the costs to business and local economy if they enact too onerous of regulation.  

No one is responsible, everyone has a reason, and nothing moves forward fast enough.  It continues because no one can be sued, no insurance company will come after them for the ten to fifteen thousand deaths in the United States each year due to coal pollution alone, no public outcry against individual building owners has taken root, and fossil fuel energy companies have cash resources to influence media and government officials.  Compared with the approximately thirty-five hundred deaths each year due to fire (mostly residential) and the total of fewer than one-hundred deaths due to major building-associated collapse in the US over the past half-century, non-renewable energy use causes much greater loss of life without any consequence that would move the public or governments to act.

Do buildings that use no imported energy have to cost more than buildings that do not meet that energy performance?  The real answer is that no one really knows.  For a building that was not planned from the start to have energy performance meet the same level of care as structural systems or fire prevention, adding on systems or technologies will add cost.  If the plan from the beginning includes minimizing all energy loads to a level that will allow on-site energy systems or local, utility-scale renewable energy to pick up the rest, then there is no evidence to suggest it will.  Take, for example, four high school projects built over the past three years:  High Tech High in Chula Vista, CA, Kensignton High in Philadelphia, Sarah Goode STEM Academy in Chicago, and Greensburg Schools in Kansas.  All four projects targeted performance as a green or high-performance building with the following results:

(Note: Goode is an estimate pending full year's performance data.  All others are per submittal to AIA Top Ten competition.)

As we see, there is no rhyme or reason linking the project energy performance and cost of the project.  Although a small data set, it does show that how a project team and owner approach a project has much to do with the ultimate cost (in addition to location, market forces).  On none of these project, though, was a financial assessment done to determine how far the team should go to prevent building collapse, or to prevent death from fire.  The teams may have tried to convince the owner to adopt more strategies that would improve performance, but all of them had to overcome the "capital versus operating" hurdle, which few technologies and strategies do over the time horizon used even by municipalities in building their own buildings.

So is there no hope?

Not quite. 

There are several ways to turn the market around immediately and have net zero buildings on the market within five years (the typical planning horizon for new building projects), and place them on the same level of priority as structural and fire prevention systems.

1.  Require each owner/design team to produce an energy prospectus the same way they have to provide a financial prospectus to funding entities.

No bonding agency or lending institution would ever think of providing the funding for a project without a detailed understanding of the finances of the owner and their planned use for the building.  Requiring a similar level of preparation on the energy systems and sources associated with a building will provide a foundation for the design team and ownership to make decisions.  When designers and owners focus on energy, the buildings have better performance.  Coupling the assessment with a default understanding that buildings will use no more energy than is available on-site unless they can show cause, and we have a no-cost way to drive the market toward efficiency.

A similar program at the Chicago Public Schools last decade challenged designers to beat the ASHRAE 90.1 standard by over thirty-five percent (35%) or provide sufficient explanation for why.  After the program went into place, almost every design resulted in at least a thirty percent (30%) improvement, whereas buildings built prior to the program performed at barely ten percent (10%) better.  It cost no more to build the building at that performance level, either in soft costs or construction costs.

2.  Require owners to have either a utility contract for energy consuming systems or an escrow account (endowment for non-profits) to cover energy bills.

The concept of raising the money for operations as part of the fundraising for a building project comes from the university building world.  This accomplishes two goals: solves the "capital vs. operations" problem allowing the owner to take advantage of future savings, and it ensures that the facilities staff will have the resources to maintain building performance.  In the for-profit sector, the requirement of owners having a contract for energy supply and maintenance of energy consuming systems at the planning stage would accomplish the same function.  The third-party would have incentive to suggest ways to improve energy performance of the building in order to maximize their profit.  Either option in its sector would provide a market-based opportunity to prioritize energy performance.

3.  Hold architects and engineers accountable for the effects of energy consumption on the country's population as a whole.

On the surface, holding design professionals to take into account the totality of human life when meeting their ethical responsibilities seems akin to shooting the messenger, if design professionals do not have the responsibility and authority to make these decisions, then who else has the ability to make them.  We count on doctors to act always in protection of life, and requiring architects and engineers to do the same meets the same goal.  Although "cost perception" presents a huge obstacle to designing net zero buildings, the fact that owners carry that perception into negotiations means that even architects that want to design net zero buildings have to compromise their goals to get work.   Providing a backstop to the profession in developing their program with owners will deliver better building designs without misguided regulation.

4.  Create an insurance product that building owners pay into based upon the amount and mix of energy the building consumes.

The insurance industry directly pays for the issues caused by fossil fuels use, including property damage, increased healthcare, and early loss of life.  Allowing the insurance industry to recoup their costs through a reinsurance product (insurance for insurance companies) that identifies those buildings that contribute most to the problems of fossil fuel use would then create another market incentive to develop better buildings.  Owners and developers could receive insurance underwriting during the design process providing guidance on the projected future costs to insure.  In much the same way fire insurance drives building codes and standards of care, this energy insurance would drive innovation and performance from a true market force and not a government mandate.

We have the knowledge to design net zero energy buildings and communities.  The only thing keeping us from turning this knowledge into reality is placing the lives and losses associated with fossil fuels as a high priority to us.  Our economy reflects our priorities, and when we prioritize life we accept the costs associated with whatever protects life.  We also then find ways to minimize the costs without sacrificing the affect to life.  One thing for certain, we cannot afford the costs of continuing fossil fuel use in our daily lives.  The only question is where we put our priorities going forward.