Author: abrahamwien18

Survey: Doctors Key in Promoting Positive Impacts of Healthy Building Design, Construction & Maintenance

Posted on by abrahamwien18

June 27, 2014
Original post here

The critical connection between a healthy building environment and patient health is often missed by the one group of professionals who may matter most – physicians, according to a new SmartMarket report by McGraw Hill Construction sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), United Technologies Corp. and other partners.

“It’s becoming clear from this initial research that doctors and other health professionals must engage with architects and the design community in a major way if we are to be successful in improving public health through design,” said AIA CEO Robert Ivy, FAIA. “We look forward to furthering that dialogue with physicians and to helping support additional research into this critical public health issue.”

The survey results were announced at the opening session American Institute of Architects Annual Convention.
The report, “The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings: The Market Drivers and Impact of Building Design on Occupant Health, Well-Being and Productivity,” finds that though 18 percent of homeowners say that doctors are their primary source for information on healthy home products and decisions, only 53 percent of pediatricians, 32 percent of family doctors/general practitioners and 40 percent of psychiatrists believe that buildings even impact patient health. Only 15 percent report receiving any information on this connection, but the results also reveal that a key challenge is not just getting information to them but gaining their attention in ways that would alter their perspective, with nearly a quarter (22 percent) reporting that more information would likely not change what they do today. You can access the full report.

The study suggests that getting more information to this group is essential to help create demand for more healthy building design and construction, given the limited understanding that physicians demonstrate of building health impacts. Physician awareness and recommendation of more fundamental healthy building design and construction practices that connect with the health risks of most concern to public health—lack of exercise, chronic stress, poor diet and obesity—could help create the market demand needed to drive investment, but only if physicians expand their engagement with these issues.

Today, the only issue the medical practitioners agree is a link between buildings and health is around mold and mildew, but that is only one of a plethora of factors in building decisions that could impact health.
“Most homeowners rely on family members and friends or colleagues to influence their choices of healthy products and practices, with very few seeking advice from builders, remodelers, contractors and architects who know most about how these decisions affect the occupant. As the construction industry increases its engagement in healthy building, this represents an opportunity for industry professionals to assist clients make decisions in order to positively impact their health,” said Harvey M. Bernstein, F.ASCE, LEED AP, vice president, Industry Insights and Alliances for McGraw Hill Construction.

The report also finds that, contrary to the position held by physicians, the general public is aware of the link between buildings and people’s health.
• 63 percent of homeowners believe products and practices they use at home affect their health, with the majority (50 percent) pointing to impact on allergies, followed by asthma/respiratory illnesses (32 percent) and headaches/migraines (30 percent).
• 90 percent of homeowners believe school buildings affect student health/productivity, and 95 percent believe hospital buildings and operations affect patient/staff health and productivity.
Human resource executives also recognize the link between buildings and health, with its top emphasis on spaces that encourage social interaction. Sixty-six percent of their companies consider spaces for social interaction when making leasing decisions today, and even more (75 percent) expect it will be considered in the future. Yet, the architect community is not as attuned to this need, with creating spaces for social integration being eighth in a list of key factors. This gap suggests the industry needs to be more sensitive to this issue given how the millennial and subsequent generations work, learn and interact and thus, improve their productivity.

The report reflects a landmark research project that is the first to span across five key stakeholders that influence the prevalence of healthy design and construction practices in buildings, including the physicians noted above, construction industry professionals in the residential and non-residential sectors, owner HR executives and homeowners. The breadth of the study is essential in critical gaps between stakeholder responses that are preventing the design and construction industry from fully capitalizing on the specific healthy building investments sought by other stakeholders.
The report reveals the increasing attention industry professionals and owners are placing on health in design and construction plans—as well as some of the needs the industry has to increase these efforts.

According to the study:
• All firms are reporting increases in addressing occupant health in design and construction decisions—59 percent of owners, with architects leading other players in adoption of healthy practices.
• Firms that are doing more green building work are also more attuned to health issues.
• Owners need more data and greater public awareness of the health impacts of products, practices and buildings holistically in order to support additional healthy building investments. Those are reported as the top drivers at 40 percent and 48 percent of owners, respectively.

“Green buildings have real, proven health benefits including improved employee productivity, lower health care costs and reduced absenteeism,” said John Mandyck, chief sustainability officer, UTC Building & Industrial Systems. “This study shows that human resource professionals and building owners see the benefit of investing in a healthier physical work environment — in fact, 66 percent of those who measured occupant well-being saw an improvement after moving to a green building.”

The report cites the need for further investigation into the specific benefits of different design, construction and product decisions, in order to overcome obstacles to investments in these areas that influence health and wellbeing.
The study is comprised of five separate market research surveys, all benchmarking at the 95 percent confidence level—(1) survey of architects, contractors and owners in nonresidential construction; (2) survey of residential builders, architects, remodelers and interior designers; (3) survey of U.S. homeowners; (4) survey of human resource executives at U.S. firms; and (5) survey of medical professionals, including general practitioners, pediatricians and psychologists/psychiatrists. Each survey captures the unique perspective of these stakeholders in terms of their awareness of healthy building impact, use of healthy building products and practices and drivers for them to prioritize health factors in future building decisions. More detailed findings on insights from all these groups are in the report.
“The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings: The Market Drivers and Impact of Building Design on Occupant Health, Well-Being and Productivity SmartMarket” Report was produced by McGraw Hill Construction in partnership with the American Institute of Architects and other premier research partners: United Technologies, CB Richard Ellis and the U.S. Green Building Council. Other support for the project was provided by the project’s two supporting research partners—the American Society of Interior Designers and Delos—and contributing partners Armstrong Ceilings Systems and Armstrong Commercial Flooring, Dewberry, Integral Group, Sloan Valve Company, Urban Land Institute, U.S. Green Building Council—Northern California Chapter, Webcor and the World Green Building Council.

60% of Companies Say Water Will Affect Future Profitability

Posted on by abrahamwien18

May 2, 2014
Original post on Environmental Leader

Most companies believe water challenges will significantly worsen in the next five years, according to a survey of major US corporations by the Pacific Institute and VOX Global.

However, the majority of companies surveyed do not appear to be planning to scale up their water risk management practices — about 70 percent of responding companies said their current level of investment in water management is sufficient.

In Bridging Concern with Action: Are US Companies Prepared for Looming Water Challenges?, the Pacific Institute and VOX Global surveyed senior officials who have direct responsibility for water issues from more than 50 companies including AT&T, Cummins, The Hershey Company, MillerCoors, and Union Pacific Railroad.

Nearly 60 percent of responding companies indicated that water is poised to negatively affect business growth and profitability within five years, while more than 80 percent said it will affect their decision on where to locate facilities. This is an increase from only five years ago, when water issues affected business growth and profitability for less than 20 percent of responding companies.

Some companies find that relatively small investments can produce a significant return on investment in mitigating water risks, the report says. According to John Schulz, assistant vice president, sustainability operations, AT&T: “Relatively small capital investments can bring about nearly 10 times the amount of savings in annual water and energy costs.”
In a study published last year, the Pacific Institute said investing in water efficiency and re-use projects will address growing problems associated with drought, flooding and contamination, and create thousands of jobs in a wide range of professions by 2020.

Change Your Perception of Financing and Reap the Energy Savings

Posted on by abrahamwien18

An overview of funding options for your next project
By Eric Woodroof, Ph.D., CEM, CRM
Click to view original article

Psychologically, when most people hear the word “financing,” they have a quick and negative reaction about cost. I understand the perception. If you look at the total financing cost on your home, you pay an amount over 30 years that can be twice the purchase price!

But most energy projects are different from your home mortgage. The savings is greater than the finance cost (especially with today’s low interest rates). Yet lack of capital and financing cost are the most common reasons why good energy projects are delayed or cancelled.

An energy project can have a rate of return over 30% – higher than most investment opportunities and many companies’ profit margins. Even with a 10% financing cost, you are still 20% ahead compared to doing nothing.

Lack of capital is solvable for many projects. I will outline solutions, some old and some new. I hope this article inspires you to challenge anyone who tries to block a good project based on the premise that money is not available and the financing cost too high. The truth is, you are probably throwing bags of money out the window – and that money cannot be recovered, even if you do a conservation project at a later date.

Innovative Options

Among recent financing innovations are Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESC), Power Purchase Agreements, on-bill financing, and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing.

Utility Energy Service Contracts are basically performance contracts that are developed and implemented by utilities. The contracts offer some streamlining because utilities can provide the project funds and make deals with neutral cash flow.
Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are commonly used for solar PV and wind generation. In a PPA, solar is put on the roof at no upfront cost to the building owner, who agrees to purchase the kWh produced over a long-term contract. The PPA is typically structured so that the building owner is paying about the same price for the solar kWhs as they would for power from the grid. This works well when the grid price is high, the utility is cooperative, and local incentives are available.

On-bill financing is offered by some progressive utilities, typically as part of a Demand Side Management Strategy that benefits the utility. As the name implies, building owners repay the installation costs with an extra charge on their future utility bills. The deal is structured so that the monthly savings is larger than the extra charge. The improvement can be linked to the meter, so that if the owner sells the building, the savings and the repayment are taken over by the new owner.

PACE is very similar to the on-bill financing concept except that the savings and repayment are linked to the property tax, so that if an owner sells a property, the new owner would assume the property tax amendment (i.e. extra payment). However, any new owner also reaps the savings cash flow. In recent years, PACE has become very popular. This financing vehicle has now been enabled by legislation in 31 states.

Traditional Financing

There are also many traditional financing options available to facility managers. If you decide to finance a project with a loan, bond, true lease, capital lease, or other leasing variation, you may have some new vocabulary to learn. You may also need an accountant to evaluate such things as depreciation. (And note that there are some new tax regulations for depreciation in 2014.) Take a little time to understand this information as well as the view from the CFO (or whoever signs the contract). To get approved, the CFO has to say “yes.” Try to make it easy – or even irresistible – for him.

Performance contracting has been around for decades and allows projects to be developed by an Energy Service Company (ESCO) that offers a performance guarantee on the savings in which the savings are greater than the finance payment, which is usually handled by a third-party financier. This approach can be attractive because, in theory, the savings are risk free due to the guarantee.

Performance contracting is more common with government, institutional, and educational facilities because financiers are more comfortable lending money to organizations that are likely to survive a recession and other difficult business cycles. Contracts can become complex (for both the ESCO and the facility) and it takes time to understand them as well as get legal endorsement, which adds time and cost.

Local incentives and rebates from utilities can be substantial and improve the return on investment if you are willing to do some before/after documentation. For example, my utility will give a $10 rebate on LED lamps that cost $20. A list of free rebates, tax credits, and other incentives is available at www.dsireusa.org. Also ask your local government, chamber of commerce, and economic development office because they may have special grant money. Because the local community benefits, I have seen funding available to help pay for solar, energy efficiency, and water conservation projects.

Additional Resources

It is clear that energy financing options have increased, leaving more choices for the facility manager – a great situation if you know where to look and how to leverage your options.

If you want some basic information about financing and performance contracting, I have a free webinar entitled Financing for Engineers that is available here. There is also information on the energy.gov and EPA websites.
For career-focused individuals that want to earn accreditation, you can look at a new certification program from the Association of Energy Engineers, the Certified Performance Contracting & Project Funding Professional. I think this type of training will help many facility managers and ESCO professionals navigate their options and accelerate project approvals.

Eric A. Woodroof, Ph.D., is the Chairman of the Board for the Certified Carbon Reduction Manager (CRM) program and he has been a board member of the Certified Energy Manager (CEM) Program since 1999. His clients include government agencies, airports, utilities, cities, universities and foreign governments. Private clients include IBM, Pepsi, GM, Verizon, Hertz, Visteon, JP Morgan-Chase, and Lockheed Martin.

600 Brickell office tower is now downtown Miami’s green giant

Posted on by abrahamwien18

Paul Brinkmann, South Florida Business Journal, 1/23/2014
Click to view original post

If you work at the new 600 Brickell office tower in downtown Miami, you don’t have to take a car or walk a block to grab lunch. One of the building’s features is a large golf cart that shuttles people to popular lunch spots.
The idea is part of the building’s green image because it stops people from firing up their gas-guzzlers just to make a short trip. But it’s also a nice amenity.

It’s a benefit offered by the new king of green among Miami’s environmentally friendly office buildings. The first LEED Platinum-certified office tower in Florida is so far living up to its ranking, the U.S. Green Building Council’s highest rating of a building’s sustainability.

Loretta Cockrum, chairwoman and CEO of Foram Group, developer of 600 Brickell, isn’t shy about the benefit to her and her company.
“Our leasing is at a record pace, and we are getting the highest rates in the market,” she said in a recent interview. “I think tenants who are looking for this type of building recognize the Platinum level of quality.”
For example, Cockrum recently signed Northern Trust Bank to relocate to the building. The bank said the LEED Platinum rating was an important factor in the decision.

“The decision was influenced by 600 Brickell’s infrastructure and amenities, including an internationally certified information technology security system, expandable IT capacity and a green environment that benefits the health and well-being our employees,” said John Fumagalli, president of the bank’s Florida operations, in a news release.
‘It just makes sense’

Getting the USGBC’s highest certification was important to Cockrum, but building quality was more important, she said.
“Forget about LEED; it just makes sense,” Cockrum said. “If someone said to you, ‘I can save you 3 million gallons of water a year for X number of dollars,’ would you do it? I said, ‘Why wouldn’t I?’” Cockrum says she is surprised such standards are not required for all buildings.

“We are diverting 3 million gallons of water a year from the city’s systems,” Cockrum said. “If you believe fresh water may be a precious commodity, think about how important that will be. But you can’t renovate a building to have that. It has to be built that way.”

Based on her experience, the most valuable feature for occupants is the quality of air and light in the building. Many studies have shown fewer sick days in LEED-certified buildings, and Cockrum said her company has noticed that impact on the staff.

Edwards & Zuck, the engineering firm on the project, said the building is one of three LEED Platinum-certified high-rise buildings on the Eastern Seaboard, and one of only 13 of its size in the world.
THE DETAILS:

600 Brickell’s green features
• 14 percent lower energy costs than average code compliance.
• 30 percent less water use than an average office building.
• 10,000-gallon tank for rainfall and condensate collection used for landscaping and fountains.
• Energy use is monitored through a building automation system and adjusted to maximize efficiency.
• 18 percent reduction in energy costs from CO2 sensors and dampers, adjusting ventilation to make HVAC systems more efficient.
• 15-foot perimeter of outer office space uses “daylight harvesting” to lower lighting costs by using sunlight on bright days.
• 2.5 million square feet includes 614,000 square feet of office space, retail space, parking and outdoor space.
• Motion-censor lighting turns off lights when no one is present.
• Ultra-low-flush fixtures and waterless urinals.
• Impact windows rated at up to 334 mph.
• Green housekeeping.
• Lunchtime shuttle.

With Temperatures Dropping, Interest in Energy Savings at Multifamily Properties Should be Heating Up

Posted on by abrahamwien18

By Tal Eyal, FirstService Residential, 1/15/2014
Click here to visit original article

While winter made its official debut on December 21, the cold weather has been upon us for some time now and has gotten to extreme levels, including 20-year record lows across the country at the start of the year.
For boards, managers and other key decision-makers at multifamily housing properties, the dropping temperatures bring a rising interest in energy saving strategies, and a renewed focus on negotiating better utility rates. Facing a host of pressing management challenges throughout the year tends to put the issue of energy efficiency on the back burner. But each year, as the cost of heating common areas rises and fluctuates, the questions flare back up again: how can we save on costs and reduce our carbon footprint, and how can we help residents do the same? The fact is, by helping residents reduce their energy costs, properties are more likely to gain buy-in for those critical capital projects that come along.

With this in mind, some condo associations and executive groups have created energy committees to explore potential infrastructure improvements to common areas that create efficiency, and to determine how to negotiate better energy rates. Other HOAs—and rental property managers—have worked with their management companies to take concrete steps toward savings: conducting energy audits, implementing comprehensive energy conservation plans, and leveraging their collective purchasing power.

At FirstService Residential, for example, through our affiliate FS Energy, which focuses exclusively on energy management and advisory services, we have implemented a benchmarking and energy savings program for nearly 600 of our multifamily properties. The program, which began in New York City, has expanded to properties in Florida, and is launching in Chicago. In essence, the approach involves analyzing a building’s energy use and comparing it to similar structures; developing an energy maintenance plan to reduce consumption based on the findings of the initial analysis; and in the case of our northern properties, integrating an Energy Aggregation Purchasing Program to reduce natural gas and electricity costs.

The simple fact is that energy conservation is not just an important environmental goal, it should be a critical financial goal for every multifamily property. The correlation between better energy practices and real savings is irrefutable. Our program in NYC has realized more than $19 million in cost savings, while reducing the carbon footprint of our buildings by 68,630 metric tons, or 15.6 percent. We expect a similarly positive result in other regions of the country.

Ultimately, every multifamily property can benefit from some basic energy planning, along with some long-term infrastructure considerations. Some of the most important steps for properties to take include:
Conduct an energy audit: By assessing current energy usage patterns and costs, and by determining where conservation opportunities exist within a property, management can begin to develop a plan for savings. Every property that has not conducted a comprehensive energy audit should get one under way.

Pursue efficiency: Not only should boards and managers implement a procurement policy that prioritizes energy efficient products—including lighting, water heaters, and water saving devices—for common areas, they should develop a communications plan to encourage individual residents to take similar actions. Building management should consider offering regular energy savings tips in communications with owners and residents, along with opportunities to purchase energy efficient products at wholesale prices.

Train property management staff in energy conservation: Simple steps such as programming thermostats in common areas around usage patterns, and turning off lights in unoccupied rooms, can lead to savings. Staff should be trained to pursue strategies that reduce energy use.

Consider infrastructure improvements: Based on the outcome of their energy audit, properties may want to undertake more significant energy saving improvements, such better insulation, insulating window film, landscaping changes, and automated systems that monitor energy use.

While the winter weather puts energy use in the hot seat, the fact is that conservation and savings are year-round endeavors. Just consider the fact that in warmer climates, such as Florida and Southern California, cooling is the greatest expense. Even in New England, A/C use in the warmer months is a significant energy drain. With this in mind, decision-makers at multifamily properties should keep energy issues high on their list of priorities.

Tal Eyal is founder and president of FS Energy, the energy management subsidiary of FirstService Residential which advises residential property management clients of ways to reduce energy consumption, costs and emissions while improving property values and quality of life. Eyal oversees FS Energy’s operations, energy procurement business, as well as the data analysis and reporting of energy usage.