AIA 2030

Most of our buildings in New York City are multifamily and six stories or more, so we can not generate all that is needed on-site and cannot have batteries (FDNY is dealing with many e-bike fires and 17 deaths from them last year). The buildings are all electric. New York State has passed legislation to require a clean grid by 2040, and our grid is supposed to be +/—70% in 2030. So we are saying they are net zero ready and should be net zero in 2040.

The original "2030 Challenge" from Architecture 2030 was about getting operating carbon emissions from the building sector to zero by 2030.  The thought wasn't that every building be autonomous, but rather that a combination of greater efficiency, electrification, and both onsite renewable energy and greening of the grid could get us there.  When the AIA adapted this notion into the "AIA 2030 Commitment" they shifted the metric from carbon to energy (EUI), in part because information about grid emissions (carbon per kWh) were highly variable across the country, and using carbon as the metric appeared to give a pass to architects designing buildings in areas with clean grids and just make architects building projects in dirty grids feel unfairly treated. And don't even get me started on the dearth of time-of-day and time-of-year variation in grid intensity.

As 2030 approaches, I would assume the AIA 2030 working group (who in SDL is a part of that these days?) is re-visiting this approach.  It's still carbon that matters, and our profession has developed a much better (though still imperfect) understanding of the grid issues.   The aspirational goal is still zero carbon, the achievable goal is to put our buildings on the path to work with a cleaning grid.  Is a course correction in the works?

Ditto Mark’s comments. My firm only gets energy modeling for 1/4-1/3 of our projects. Clients just don’t want to pay for it. As a result, for 2030 we can only claim code min. for many projects that are doing all the right things (better than average envelopes, all-elec heat pump or similar HVAC, etc.). We need to figure out a way to do easy in-house energy analysis so we can understand pEUI on those projects and correctly report them. Also, the AIA point person for 2030 told me that most of the firms hitting the mark are on the west coast where energy code is robust and renewables/offsets are required. I am not familiar with the details of those codes, but it could be that 2030 is not measuring firm progress, but code progress. Advocacy for better codes is another thing to do. Dan Piselli, AIA, LEED AP, CPHD Director of Sustainability, Principal FXCollaborative Architects LLP D +1 646 292 8137 | T +1 212 627 1700 Fro

Hi Z, I am on the AIA 2030 Working Group. We have begun talking about these issues but there is no final plan yet. Feel free to email with any specific questions / comments: werner@ellenzweig.com Jacob

Adding to what has already been said, the 2030 Challenge used a nuanced wording about 'fossil fuel energy use reduction,' which I've spent many a conversation trying to understand. The Zero code provides some insights into Arch 2030 goals. My understanding: * In 2030, an all-electric building would comply if it is on an 100% renewable energy grid (these don't exist in the US), or has a dedicated PPA for 100% renewable energy (these do exist). Are other options available? * Before 2030, some combination of fossil fuel reduction in the electricity grid and/or fossil fuel reduction on-site and/or offsite renewable energy through a PPA to total a comprehensive 90% reduction would appear to comply. The baseline, of course, is important and not easy to generate. Then again, they don't certify buildings. Interestingly, I couldn't find the 2030 step down chart on the Arch 2030 website just now. As a west coast firm that just met the 2030 thresholds per AIA for the first time in 2023, it's been a bit of luck and a bit of strategy: * We start our projects with a reasonable window to wall ratio and often use above-code insulation levels. * We have a policy on engaging third party early energy modeling on all projects. This is 90% successful. (We also require embodied carbon modeling on all projects as of 2020) * Energy code is the most important factor in large scale energy and carbon use reduction, I agree! We have good codes in WA and they help. I'm on the state building code council and help lead this effort (there are dozens of people that are dedicated to moving this forward, so I'm not taking credit for it, but it's an important advocacy role for an architect to lead this effort since we see the big picture and the details simultaneously). We also have a very supportive governor and legislature. * We are lucky enough to work with clients that already have decent goals before they hire us. I'm most proud of our work to help them go all-electric when their baseline is otherwise: perhaps 1/3rd of our projects we help change their minds. * Our clients are increasingly buying PPAs, which now allows a direct impact on the AIA 2030 reporting. Some also put solar on site, which also counts. PPA inclusion is honestly the biggest improvement we are seeing over the last couple of years. Efficiency only gets us so far, perhaps 50-70% on most projects compared to the 2003 CBECS/equivalent. The exact way that AIA 2030 WG asks for off site renewable energy is also very important - I think they've done a good job (and I emailed them a specific question about one project last year) and there is more to do to clarify a worthy off-site option. There is a tricky problem here in that a very inefficient building with a 100% PPA complies with the 2030 Challenge via client money for the PPA, whereas an efficient, all-electric building without a PPA doesn't comply. So obviously it's not just the architects responsible for 2030 compliance as you point out. The zero code includes a minimum energy efficiency standard, but it's not a very aggressive level of energy efficiency. And the new net zero operational standard by the white house includes minimum efficiency as well. Here's a writeup: https://network.aia.org/blogs/kjell-m-anderson-faia/2024/06/13/lmns-2030-reporting-transparency-and-a-path-to-zer -Kjell Kjell Anderson FAIA, LEED Fellow Principal, Director of Sustainable Design LMN Architects lmnarchitects.com M 206 812 6546 O 206 682 3460 S Linkedin | X | Instagram

John Mlade reminded me that not all PPAs are accompanied by RECs, so be careful out there. I'm also diving into the Aug 2024 SBTi Buildings Sector Guidance document today, for which I was very hopeful. Unfortunately I can't find much that is useful for A/E firms. There is no new guidance for A/E, and a few 'may' statements in Appendix C where we are told to go for guidance. Has anyone found nuggets of wisdom for us in the new SBTi guidance? It is focused mainly on building owners and financiers, with a nod to tenants as well. Realistically, focusing on Scopes 1 and 2 are not our biggest opportunity or where we should spend most of our time. If not, we are back full circle to the AIA 2030 WG being the leader in setting metrics, rules, and targets for our firms, along with MEP 2040, SE 2050. -Kjell Kjell Anderson FAIA, LEED Fellow Principal, Director of Sustainable Design LMN Architects lmnarchitects.com M 206 812 6546 O 206 682 3460 S Linkedin | X | Instagram

Architecture 2030 doesn't have their old graphics anymore. My guess is they realize the original concept was just that - a concept - and they have moved on. AIA 2030 Commitment was intended as an implementation of the 2030 metrics, in the way Z describes. AIA wanted to reward "design" as it pertains to energy performance so they decided on the energy metric which was something designers had more control over. Efficiency gets you to 65%-85% reduction from the baseline depending on building type and climate (and even a bit on how cost-effective certain efficiency measures might be compared to solar - e.g. California). Arch 2030 was originally based around an 80% target - the other 20% would be from onsite or grid renewables as Kjell describes. * I think it is worth tracking the %pEUI reduction from "efficiency-only" as a metric at AIA level. So then we can see how we are doing for building performance. We need to be designing the best performing buildings that we can. * I think it is definitely worth bringing more clarity to how offsite renewables are counted in AIA 2030 - and I think that keeping the spirit of "design" is important. So rather than just saying "well this client only purchases renewable grid energy so we are zero energy/carbon," that idea would have to be a conscious part of the design process and the owner/design team would decide to pursue new off-site purchases when it made sense vis-à-vis other options including efficiency. * Consideration of how LEED and ILFI LBC/ZeroCarbon programs allow off-site renewables should be part of the discussion also. ILFI only counts "newly-developed" renewables. LEED has tiers. * It also might be good to have a glossary of all the off-site options. PPA is one but there are others. I don't understand the differences. Since we need to be developing more renewables everywhere, both on buildings and in non-urban areas, we as 2030 Commitment folks should be advocating for both on- and off-site development of newly built renewables within our project design work. Jim Hanford, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP

Kjell, and others, Glad you mentioned PPAs. It would be great to see some guidance, lessons learned, etc. What scale are we talking about? Is it usually a case of client entering an agreement with a third party, or buying into something already in place? What role do utilities play? What scale are we talking about? Does a PPA solve the problem of a building owner not having the capital to install PV? Patrick Donnelly AIA, LEED AP, LFA he / him Associate Principal | Director of Sustainable Design Pdonnelly@integrusarch.com O 206.628.3137 C 206.355.0699 [cid:image001.png@01DB0069.F4661B20] A COLLABORATION OF YGH & INTEGRUS ARCHITECTURE integrusarch.com [cid:image002.jpg@01DB0069.F4661B20][cid:image003.jpg@01DB0069.F4661B20][cid:image004.jpg@01DB0069.F4661B20]

Patrick (and Jacob, if it comes to that point in discussions at the AIA 2030 working group):

Architecture 2030 has a wonderfully nuanced look at onsite vs offsite renewable energy procurement options (PPAs, VPPAs, and many other flavors) in their 31 page document (https://www.zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Zero-Code-TSD-OffSiteRenewables.pdf) on the subject.  They recommend crediting onsite renewable generation (let's face it, solar) at 100% of its generation, while de-rating offsite options according to how truly "additional" they are, as well as other considerations.  Page 24 in that document summarizes what they call the "Procurement Factor" for these options, ranging from 1.00 for onsite solar to 0.55 for unbundled RECs.  AIA could do a lot worse than to simply adopt this framework.

To pick up on Kjell's point, that we'd still like to reward efficient design, rather than just electric-powered Humvees. The ILFI Living Building Core Imperative 07 ("Energy and Carbon Reduction") is a remarkably practical place to start: 
New Buildings: 70% reduction in energy consumption from existing typical existing building of the same type in the same climate; no onsite combustion
Existing Buildings (major renovation): 50% reduction in energy consumption; phase-out plan for combustion
Interiors-only: 35% reduction

Even in benighted Lousiana, we have been able to hit those targets on most of our projects, following the strategies Kjell has mentioned: moderate use of glass, energy model as much as you can (we hit 89% of our portfolio last year), and so on. None of our clients use PPAs, and only a few projects have onsite solar. Our AIA 2030 portfolio area-weighted EUI reduction was 69% last year.

The 2030 Challenge was a perfectly reasonable simplification when it was devised in 2006, and the AIA 2030 Commitment was a perfectly reasonable adaptation of that when it was devised in 2009.  We know more than we did then. I think we need a tune-up, to establish a "glide path" that's both aggressive and realistic for getting the entire building stock operating carbon footprint to zero.  Net-zero new construction is the least challenging part of this effort.  Two-thirds of the buildings in our 2050 building stock are already built, and we only get the chance to intervene in a few percent of that stock each year. 

This effort won't be "done" by 2030. Maybe we need to re-frame the problem and lay out the road map for the decarbonization of both the building stock as well as building construction, with goals recalibrated to what we know today.  Eisenhower said, "Whenever I run into a problem I can’t solve, I always make it bigger. I can never solve it by trying to make it smaller, but if I make it big enough, I can begin to see the outlines of a solution."  Maybe that's the next step for us.

Completely agree with Z. We won't be done by 2030 and we need an updated roadmap and methods that are perhaps a compilation of other vetted resources. I'll suggest it needs to include embodied carbon as well. Adding another resource, ASHRAE 228 Definition of Net Zero Buildings. They have a table as well that discounts offsite renewable energy. -Kjell Kjell Anderson FAIA, LEED Fellow Principal, Director of Sustainable Design LMN Architects lmnarchitects.com M 206 812 6546 O 206 682 3460 S Linkedin | X | Instagram

Hey all, Love this question and conversation! I have been on the AIA 2030 Working Group since 2022 and am a current Co-Chair of the 2030 WG along with the other outgoing co-chair David Arkin at Arkin Tilt, and past co-chair Venessa Hostick at HOK. Many of the current and past 2030 WG members are a part of the SDL group. In my time as an AIA 2030 signatory with Mahlum and as a member of the AIA 2030 Working Group I have seen the AIA 2030 Commitment goal of “…reaching net zero emissions in the built environment.” shift from a focus on energy efficiency (pEUI reduction percent) to operational and embodied carbon emissions, OCI (Operation Carbon Intensity) and ECI (Embodied Carbon Intensity). Below is where I see net-zero at today and the gap to achieving it.

1. Net Zero Energy with Renewables: Currently the DDx calculates Gross and Net pEUI by subtracting renewable kWh from your Grid supplied kWh. Fossil fuel use cannot be offset with renewables and only on-site and dedicated off-site renewables count towards offsetting grid electricity. More info here on the Net-pEUI formulas. All electric or bust!
2. Net Zero Operational Carbon: Currently the DDx uses the Portfolio Manager Technical Reference on Greenhouse Gas Emissions to calculate Net Operational Carbon Intensity. It uses 2021 eGrid subregion average emissions factors for electricity use emissions and marginal avoided emissions factors for renewable avoided emissions. I understand many disagree with this calculation methodology as it mixes average and marginal factors and is not forward looking like the NREL Cambium datasets but considering the collaboration the AIA has with Energy Star Portfolio Manager it is good starting point that I am sure will evolve.
3. Net Zero Embodied Carbon: Currently the DDx does not have a way to include embodied carbon emissions offsets, AIA only asks for the predicted Embodied Carbon Intensity in kgCO2e/m2 and what Scope and LCA stage are included in your calculation. AIA is planning on updating the Embodied Carbon section this year to align with the ECHO project schema to report the embodied carbon on our work in similar ways to our partner organizations.
4. Closing the gap by 2030? Truth be told it is uncertain if Mahlum’s, or many firms work on average will achieve Net-Zero energy or emissions by 2030 because our energy codes are not stringent enough, operational carbon calculations are evolving, embodied carbon accounting is nascent, and most carbon offsets are questionable. Despite the challenging realities of these reasons, Mahlum is not giving up. Net-Zero is possible we just need to make it common.

Hi all, I’m late to this really great conversation. Here are a few thoughts. With just 6 years left until 2030, it’s clear that almost nobody will achieve firm-wide zero emission portfolios. But maybe that was never really the point. What 2030 did, through the guise of stepping down energy use (or carbon emissions) every 5 years, was to teach our profession to measure and report. Measure and report! There is huge value in encouraging curiosity about how projects perform, and tracking firm-wide progress year over year allows for honest self appraisal. Reporting adds transparency and applies an element of social pressure. All of these features of the programs resulted in meaningful progress by shifting thinking and establishing new norms, not necessarily by encouraging energy modeling.  When we become too focused on hitting zero (whatever that means) by 2030, we can lose the script and forget that 2030 is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. As great as the 2030 commitment is, the focus on energy modeling might be its weakest part. Many firms lack the tools, knowledge, or experience to either energy model themselves, or to have intelligent conversations with modeling consultants. New tools sprung up, like Sefaira and Cove Tool, that have bred a false sense of progress by providing answers regardless of the appropriateness of the question being posed. If the genius behind the 2030 commitment was to introduce measurement and reporting, its liability is that bad design can hide behind inaccurate modeling. This might have been fine 15 years ago, but 6 years out, maybe it's time to refocus on design, very much in the way that Kjell, Jesse, and Z described above.  What if we shifted away from predicted energy metrics and instead focused on avoiding obvious mistakes. I’d call this the “Nothing Stupid Challenge.” By 2030 we, as a profession, could commit to ending the still-all-too-common errors that result in bad performance (and bad design), such as over glazing, embodied-carbon-intensive-forms, PVC flooring, gas systems, ect. A firm with twenty unnecessarily overglazed projects today can commit, by 2030, to bringing this number down to zero. No time, cost, or simulation necessary, but a meaningful impact towards the goal.  Similar to Mark’s comment above, at Bora, we also design project types that will never be zero-energy, such as urban high schools and multi-story affordable housing projects. What’s important to me is that we don’t make avoidable design mistakes. While we do model all of our projects, the model results are never surprising and just offer the opportunity for minor design fine tuning. While these project types don’t allow us to achieve 80% portfolio reductions, our buildings are super efficient, all-electric, resilient, healthy, and comfortable. They will excel in future climates and become carbon free when the grid is cleaned in Oregon by 2045. I think we’ve met the challenge’s intent, even if the numbers don’t make that obvious. Some firms report higher reductions with portfolios that obviously don’t perform at that level.   So my proposal for the next 6 years is that we elevate the importance of WWR and decrease the importance of EUI. We can judge projects based on their appearance rather than a self reported number and encourage better design rather than more mediocre modeling. This approach might be more in line with the original concept of the 2030 commitment and I'm sure it would result in more energy reductions.   

[heart] Lauren Gunther reacted to your message:

Join me, David Arkin, AIA and Eana Bacchiocchi on October 24th at Noon PST for the annual AIAU webinar that will walk through this year's AIA 2030 Commitment By the Numbers report. We will cover where reporting firms are with pEUI Reduction, Operational, and Embodied Carbon reporting, and how to compare your projects pEUI and Operational Carbon to the DDx dataset in the new-ish Research Tab!