Stuck in 40s

Design. The answer is design. There's a perception among many that performance is driven by smarter systems, but the research shows that up to 90% of the impact of a project is determined by the earliest design decisions (size, orientation, massing, fenestration, etc.). Smart systems can't significantly make up for dumb design. And relying primarily on systems is also why there's a lingering perception that higher performance has to mean higher costs. Without fundamentally changing architects' approach to design, we'll never move the needle significantly. Shameless plug: Collapsing the divide between standards of "good design" and "green design" is the premise of my book, *The Shape of Green*. https://lancehosey.com/writing#/the-shape-of-green/ *Lance Hosey*, FAIA, LEED Fellow Chief Impact Officer HMC Architects

We have been able to hit 70%-80% reductions in K12 projects using efficient systems and sensible approaches on massing and daylight. It was always the intent of the 2030 Challenge that reaching 100% reductions would rely on the inclusion of renewables, mainly PV. It’s my conclusion that 80% reduction is reaching the point of diminishing returns on efficiency- at least in K12. The final 20% reductions will need to come from PV. If you are stuck at 40% reductions, that may be specific to your project type. Kristian Kicinski AIA, LEED BD+C Associate Principal / Director of Sustainability (he,him,his) Bassetti Architects o 206 340 9500 / d 206 536 1370 www.bassettiarch.com Need to send me files? Click here. *Please note that June 1st through September 3rd, Bassetti will be celebrating summer with modified office hours: Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm; Friday 8am-12pm. Fro

Architecture 2030 has embraced the approach of the Zero Code and subtly modified its language over the past year or so to focus on “fossil-fuel reduction” as opposed to “EUI” reduction. This is very significant (and in my opinion needs clearer explanation and rollout) in that it now embraces clean power purchase/off site renewables as an equivalent pathway to onsite renewables. AIA 2030 Commitment is not explicit about this, but has always followed the lead of Architecture 2030. This year’s 2030 ddx allows you to take credit for off-site renewables as a direct way to reduce your net EUI. It does not discount the contribution based on measures of “additionaility”, unlike the Zero Code, but my understanding is that that is the intent but might not have made it into the current dashboard. You’ll see that the questions are there to be answered, but your answer doesn’t actually impact the results. The upshot: the goal was always zero carbon buildings by 2030, and the recent shift to a focus on fossil-fuel reduction instead of energy-use reduction is the right step to allow the industry to not get “stuck at 40”. As industry leaders, we need to talk to our clients about the importance of clean power purchase and not just on-site renewables, and the new 2030properly incentivizes us to do so. Best, Brad Jacobson FAIA, LEED® AP, DBIA Principal Pier 1 The Embarcadero, Bay 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415-214-7276 [cid:image001.jpg@01D75C5F.C22B8700] Brad Jacobson FAIA, LEED® AP, DBIA Principal Pier 1 The Embarcadero, Bay 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415-214-7276 [cid:G_190118_N24_webview_bb0303a9-c805-4097-ac97-3ab99950504f.jpg] From: Kristian Kicinski

I'd echo Kristian's observation:  We are routinely hitting 65 - 75% reduction on all projects (from residential to office to labs) where we are paying attention--even for existing building renovations where we are leaving the envelope alone!   I bring up existing buildings example in contrast to Lance's observation about massing & orientation because don't get that choice when we are intervening in a sad 1980's office building with dark single-pane glass.   Our overall portfolio savings are bumping around in the range of 55 - 60% savings, pulled down by some projects where our interventions are limited (example, a building where the state historic preservation people are fetishizing the single-pane clear glass and exposed brick, or a university that is very proud of their campus chilled water and steam loops and requires us to use them.

That said, Brad's observation is the right one:  The goal is to get to zero carbon in joyful, beautiful spaces that support human activity.  So getting the last 25% of the getting-to-zero will likely be from a combination of onsite renrewables and a grid that is decarbonizing as we speak.  "The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed."

All, We are being careful with off-site renewables associated with getting to 100%.  As long as you buy the RECs**, it's legit.  For most urban existing buildings or limited/tight site conditions, we have to recourse to buying off-site to make the 100%.  In addition,  we saw a variety of issues around PPAs (on-site but not owned), where the PPAs retain the RECs as part of the "deal".  Owners (in our case school districts) don't realize they don't buy/own green power when they let go fo the RECs (usually only retired after 20 years).  We are often not at all involved in the contractual negotiations for PPA.  The PV RECs market is a "brokerage business", still benefitting decarbonization, but not without some disadvantages to the consumers.    Owned and on-site (Class A) remains the best option in our opinion, where applicable, for the last 20%.  ** I was also told that RECs have a different impact/value pending on where they are located or impact the grid. Martine

Good information all. I will say that I am with Seonhee on the frustration/challenges we are seeing as the 80% and 90% mark is getting harder to hit – with our mixed portfolio of CS, Higher Ed, Interiors, civic work… even with our K-12 work helping us. Agree with Lance, Z and Brad – but are any of you having a hard time meeting this on housing or affordable housing? More sharing please! From:

As most of our portfolio is housing and affordable housing, I would say we are having the 40s challenge as well. Even with title 24 and WA state energy code as the baseline, our typical buildings are 40-45%. Especially when you actually energy model instead of using Zero Tools overly optimistic presumptions on energy savings for multifamily.
We have seen breakthroughs with several buildings pursuing ILFI or partial ILFI certification achieving in the 60-70s before taking into account offsite renewables credits. This shows that there is a pathway, but has to be intentional and better than code minimum to get there.
Agree wholeheartedly with Lance that the design is also the pathway. Do the simple things first around orientation, building configuration, shading, allowing for natural ventilation, etc. Then systems strategies. Then the renewables strategies. Then the offsets.

In the AIA 2030 Working Group, we are seeing a trend of firms Plateauing. Many of us are using this as an opportunity to dive back into our SAP’s and the AIA education series Barbra Batshalom organized on firm successes was encouraging. We have also been working on quantifying progress not just with pEUI but with overall carbon. Our hunch is that even if the needle is stuck on pEUI, other needles can and are moving on carbon. Lots to process. ashley mulhall SENIOR ASSOCIATE AIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP, EDAC orcutt | winslow PHOENIX • NASHVILLE • DALLAS/FORT WORTH 2929 n central ave • eleventh floor • phoenix az 85012 602.257.1764 t | 480.862.4502 c | www.owp.com FACEBOOK • TWITTER • INSTAGRAM From: Pauline

Just to stir the pot a bit more, my general attitude is that the 2030 metrics are kind of a necessary nuisance - a gateway drug to deeper, portfolio-wide understanding and perspective about our work; and i think the quicker we can get beyond "percent reduction of EUI compared to a perhaps-questionably-meaningful baseline based on predictive energy modeling" as The Goal the more we can start to form our firms' own intrinsic motivators and standards for project performance...For example, 2030 has been a powerful excuse to build for myself and our staff a frame of reference for understanding EUI in our sector (multifamily), what it's sensitive to, and how much we think it matters in a broader context (esp. given the value of housing to society); literacy with energy modeling; more informed interactions with our energy and MEP consultants; building curiosity among our staff to engage more directly with Cx agents, other consultants and stakeholders of our feedback loop; convincing clients and PMs to value non-compliance energy modeling and collecting actual utility data, which is a lot more informative. Our portfolio has plateaued around 50% reduction, which does not make me feel bad, given what i know about the baselines we use, how buildings are actually behaving, and PV options. And this has spurred a rich and inclusive conversation in the office about "why we're not winning" and what our success criteria should actually be. Interestingly i don't think my complete lack of interest in meeting the 2030 goal has undermined being able to leverage it. I'm happy that the 2030 commitment has now layered in the topic of off-site PV and embodied carbon - it will motivate me to shift our self-education to these topics. But yes, my dirty secret is that taking the challenge at face-value has not proved a good use of my...energy. har har. Katie

Lots of great insight already. For many building types you can get to pEUI reductions of 65% to 75% through efficiency only, then need at least some renewables to get to 80+. So I tell our folks that we currently need "best in class" building performance and at least some renewables - like 1/3 of the total energy (in addition to being electric buildings). This doesn't work for all building types however - especially the ones with low baseline EUIs like Multifamily. I think there was always an understanding that as we got closer to 2030 there would need to be a reckoning on the renewables piece, which is underway. Building Green email subject line today: "Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings are the new Net-Zero" As for the second question, you can use EPA Target Finder and enter that you want an Energy Star score of 90 (which means in the top 10% of performers) to find a target EUI for that level. When you are looking at "best in class" however you might want to look at Energy Star score of 95-99. Passive House is also another way of generating this target. Jim Jim Hanford, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP

We just got out of the 40's in 2020 (51.5... woot?). Two of three reasons for the improvement had to do with legislation (go out and advocate!): 1. NYC energy code got more stringent part-way through the year, which improved the default for un-modeled projects. 2. Many owners are utilizing NYC's Zone Green area bonus, which requires improved envelope performance. The third reason is more positive: 3. A few high-achieving projects (Passive House / Net Zero) bouyed the average. Our main challenges continue to be perceived market demand for high percentages of glazing in commercial & residential buildings, and tight urban sites that force less-than-optimal massing and glazing orientation. A silver lining from COVID is that some multi-family residiential clients have bought into DOAS for filtered fresh air (instead of just using windows as allowd by code) as a health measure, which of course allows energy recovery.   Dan Piselli, AIA, LEED AP, CPHD Director of Sustainability, FXCollaborative

While our portfolio does not feel stuck it has over the past four years begun to level off. To hopefully help make some descriptive points, I will share that our 2020 portfolio work, which is primarily on the west coast (CA, WA state and city of Seattle), has a code minimum starting point at a 52% reduction, based on weighted square foot average. The predicted design is at 64% and with PV it goes down to a net 73% reduction. While these are at the moment great numbers, I have similar feelings or concerns even coming from this reference point that we could easily stagnate, and I feel there is still a lot of room left to improve on those numbers.

I'm in agreement with the comment from Kristian that around 80% +/- is going to be the maximum design reduction potential and the remaining 20% +/- reduction will need to come from PV. Our design reductions across the portfolio ranged from 48% up to to 82%. There are 10+ building designs from last year with predicted design reductions between 75% and 82% before PV and what they all have in common is that all are targeting either net zero, LEED v4 Platinum (with all energy points), Living Building, or Passive House. 

If your portfolio does not have the opportunity or does not push for the opportunity to design to one of those Big 4 standards (net zero, LEED Platinum, Living Building, or Passive House) then you will remain stuck at wherever you are. Same for my firm, if we do not keep pushing for all of our projects to meet one of those certifications then we too are going to stay stuck in a 60-70% range for design reductions and not get to the 75-80% design reduction needed. We can't be satisfied anymore with one, two, or a few exemplary projects, it must become every project in the portfolio. I know, there is a whole different conversation that needs to happen about advocating to clients and what they are willing to do beyond code minimums, but that is what it is going to take to meet the AIA 2030 Commitment.

Adding to the comment from Dan, I will also give one more plug for energy codes making progress and also for becoming involved in the code making process. As an example, the new 2018 WA energy code (effective Feb 2021 after covid delays) will take a large leap forward for multifamily buildings with the requirement for filtered mechanical ventilation with efficient energy/heat recovery to every unit. Window trickle vents and 'natural = occasional' ventilation are not allowed anymore in the state, but you can still open you windows when the weather is appropriate and nice. This requirement coupled with selection as one of the required options to reduce buiding airtightness down to 0.17 CFM75 max creates a code minimum pathway for multifamily buildings in the state to meet the Passive House Institute low-energy building standard (based on shoebox modeling of multifamily prototypes, individual results will vary). This is not a full PHI Passive House certification but it puts designs within very close striking distance of meeting Passive House. This will help not only our in-state multifamily project designs but all of our multifamily design work as we can from experience advocate for this level of perfromance (and all-electric) on all of our projects.

Thanks,
Mike Fowler
Senior Associate
Sustainability Integration Leader, Seattle
Mithun 

P.S. - full disclosure that I wrote the multifamily energy code proposal described above for WA state and am now completing my service from over the past 3 years as president of Passive House Northwest. I also sit on the WA energy code technical advisory group and vote on behalf of state architects for which energy code proposals move forward or not in the first of three approval levels in the state code process.

If you have interest to learn more about Passive House, the North American Passive House Network (NAPHN) conference, which focuses on the PHI international standard, is happening this Thursday and Friday, virtual and in New York city. There is a 20% discount available with this code: friends_naphn_2021 and registration is at: www.naphnconference.org 

The PHIUS (Passive House Institute United States) conference, PhiusCon 2021, is happening October 12-15 in Tarrytown, NY.

Seonhee, if you set aside the percentages, what range of EUIs are we talking about? How do you feel about the quality of the modeling and how it's used during design? I think it makes sense to feel stuck dwelling in abstract metric land. it can only take us so far - nothing that comes out of an energy model is worth the emotional weight of guilt.

I once heard Nadav describe the genius of the 2030 Challenge as converting something we knew would be complex (which tends to make people hesitant) into something easy to grasp (even if hard to do).   There was no reason to expect that progress would be linear, but it simply said, "Here's where we are starting, and here's where we are going," and drew a straight line.  The originally stated goal of the Challenge (not the later AIA Commitment) was getting to zero carbon emissions, not to zero energy; the AIA chose to track EUI instead so as to not give a free ride to architects practicing in locations with lower-carbon grids nor overly discourage those building projects where grids were higher carbon.   So, picking up on Katie's sentiment, perhaps the 2030 Commitment is something we should take seriously but not literally. In direct response to Seonhee's question about 'secret sauce', one key approach that has proven reasonably successful at our firm (where very few of our clients are interested in certification) is to follow an approach I first heard Corey Squire suggest:  "Just make the basis of your firm's design the latest energy code, whether it's in legal force or not."  For the last few years we've just been designing to ASHRAE 90.1-2016 as a starting point and working from there; it's what we tell our consultants at the outset; it moves the 'base' projects up to ~50% savings and then you go from there.  This picks up on Dan and Mike's observations about codes and just makes the future be now, but provides flexibility to jettison a requirement if it isn't actually improving things or the client pushes back on a particular aspect.  You widen the Overton Window in the right direction. And speaking of windows... We've also worked within our firm culture (with uneven success) to be more strategic in our use of glass in new construction ("Friends don't let friends overglaze their buildings.")   We can still have a 'wow' moment of extensive glazing, but it better not face east or west.  We just won a national AIA Educational Facilities award with a project with such a strategy with a great EUI. Not everyone is on board, but the younger staff seem to have internalized it. Third, to Seonhee's point about making good progress on the things "under the architect's control" but losing ground on things like appliances and plug loads, and Pauline's query about affordable housing:  If architects are going to take responsibility for the impacts of buildings, it means we get to take responsibility for a bunch of things that we never talked about in architecture school: things like appliances in housing, freezers in lab buildings, cooktops in schools, and so on.  We recently completed a not-very-glamorous affordable housing project (50 apartments, net zero with battery backup and ability to island) that we were able to build for $164/sf by following such an approach.  This got down to not just specifying EnergyStar appliances, but calling multiple appliance distributors and finding the available options that did far better than the EnergyStar threshold. This is all just to say that we can get to fairly encouraging results with simple, if unglamorous, practices, even when working for clients that didn't have high goals.   We've been talking up the simplest practices ("pretend your local energy code is the latest one") among the other design and construction firms in our home city, to build a body of firms with direct experience willing to testify in support of raising the mandatory statewide requirements.    More recently, inspired by collaborative work among Chicago firms some years ago, we've convened some "Take a sinner to dinner" workshops that have helped raise the number of 2030 participants in our state from 2 (when we started) to 5 (in 2016) to 16 firms this year, committing to mentoring and coaching.  This process is a lot less depressing when you're doing it with others who are facing the same challenges.  Of course, the food and the drinks around here help too...

I really appreciated your message Seonhee, and want to add a little context re program direction. This info is all out there, but we’re planning to polish it up and a publish it in the annual report later this year. I have to admit, I am often amazed at the staying power of this program. It’s 10+ years old, its vision is still relevant, and the network continues to grow. Despite its voluntary nature, there have been +212 new firm signatories since 2020, which is a 37.9% increase…if you’re counting. The network has been its greatest asset as shown by the previous contributions to the thread. In any case, the target is a stretch, and the 2030 working group has taken (and is taking) steps to address it. After a decade of tracking energy data and facing both higher targets and increasingly expensive measures, the program needs to refine its core metrics to increase market uptake and ensure a pathway for compliance so all projects everywhere can meet the commitment with accessible, market based tools. Assuming 1.2% program improvement per year (the average annual improvement) we’ll get to roughly 60% reduction by 2030 on the current path. Let that sink in. So how far can we get if we give a damn? Approximately 25% of the top architectural firms achieve +60% better than baseline level of performance across their portfolios. In addition, exemplary projects awarded the AIA’s COTE Top Ten Award in 2020 averaged 57% savings against this baseline. I think we can hit 60% based on current trajectory assuming today’s best practice is tomorrow’s standard practice. Before making changes, it’s important to note that only 50% of projects get an energy model. This ratio persists even for buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet. Assuming a conservative 10% improvement through increased modeling, using the most current code, or prescriptive guidelines for high performance (ex: AEDG, Ithaca’s example, etc) that gets us to 70%. Renewables were finally broken out in the DDx, so we can now track their growth in the market more accurately. A conservative 10% growth in the solar market by 2030 seems reasonable, especially since the last decade saw 42% growth overall. This conservatively gets us to 80%. Here’s where it gets tricky. In order to meet 100% carbon reduction target, we need to rely on cost effective means for reducing operational carbon such as electrification, time dependent valuation (TDV), battery storage, and offsite renewables. So switching to a carbon based metric is imperative to show progress, but we can’t leave new signatories behind, nor can we turn our backs on the hospitals, labs, and other energy dense buildings that make up a big portion of our footprint. There are a number of major barriers to switching to a carbon accounting system – a general lack of understanding, no commodity market for carbon, and etc. So the plan is to stick with EUI and add carbon metric in parallel to increase awareness until there is more solid ground to transition. To retain its base and increase signatories, 2030 needs to expand its scope to address these new methodologies for reducing carbon, and at the same time hold onto the characteristics that make it relevant to its main architectural audience. This is a big shift that will take time, but we’ve done it before. A lot of other programs are building off of 2030 framework including RIBA and SE2050. A ton of new resources hit the street in the last 6 months including an overhauled DDx, new SAP guide, and a 2030 Welcome Kit just last week. We are in early stages of planning educational resources for chapters and a 2030 Summit. Another priority is to develop market specific guidance. So hang in there! Stuff is happening. Of course, we’re always open to your feedback and your time if you’re interested in volunteering. Best, Tate Tate Walker AIA | LEED Fellow | WELL AP Director of Sustainability OPN Architects o: (608) 819-0260 | c: (608) 286-9397 | d: (608) 819-0844 | twalker@opnarchitects.com 301 N. Broom St., Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53703 www.opnarchitects.com From: Z Smith

As always, appreciate Tate's optimism. Another way to look at it, supporting the original sense of being stuck: - There are maybe 20,000 architecture firms in the US, according to some estimates - If that's accurate, then 311+ firms reporting to the 2030 program represent just ~1.5% of the whole industry - Arguably, those 300+ firms (essentially the SDL group?) could be considered the leading edge of the profession, since they are the firms who have decided this topic is important enough to make this commitment - If, after a decade of reporting, the leading edge (1-2% of the profession) is nowhere near where it needs to be (14% additional reduction, with the average progressing from 35% to 49%, compared to targets of 60% to 80%), what hope is there for the other 98-99% of the industry? - However, if I remember this accurately, the annual AIA general report shows that large firms (100+ people) account for some 3% of the firms but a third of the annual billings; I believe most of the large firms have signed 2030, so their/our progress potentially has great leverage with the overall impact of the profession - When I was at Gensler, we calculated that that one firm's annual volume accounted for 44-45% of the architectural total for all reporting firms and over 80% of the total for interiors (though I defer to my former colleagues there to correct me if I'm not remembering that accurately) - Add up all the very-large firms (1000+ people), and I would guess that their 2030 data accounts for a large majority of the annual impact of all reporting firms; that's powerful leverage - Yet, as I understand it, the 2030 program originally was meant to be a snapshot of the whole industry, but given this info, it arguably has become a profile of the very few very large firms, a fact that is not at all obvious in the annual reports; some of us have encouraged AIA to publish what percent of the volume comes from firms of different sizes, but to date it has not done that - While I appreciated examples of projects such as Top Ten winners as signs of great progress, the whole point of the Top Ten program is to celebrate the leading edge; making a big difference with a tiny number of projects will not make enough of a difference overall The one thing that seems to be a great sign of hope in this exchange is the idea of greening the grid. But how soon can that happen? Coal is still a big chunk of power sources in the US, and renewables have not made huge strides. So, I guess my question is whether this dialogue is focused on the "secret sauce" for changing the whole industry or changing individual firms.... I'm on vacation right now, so I'm going to sip a margarita and stop wondering about the end of the world. :( *Lance Hosey*, FAIA, LEED Fellow Chief Impact Officer HMC

I love and miss you all and am learning from this conversation. My two cents: Massing->Envelope->HVAC->Renewable Energy As has been pointed out before, moving a firm-wide, across-all-sf-number like 2030 reporting is most easily done in areas with aggressive Codes; we are a beneficiary of that, especially for our least-enlightened clients. For code to be enacted, some exemplar projects need to be in place (“That which exists must be possible”), of course, so the unicorn projects can have that kind of big impact. The energy code around multifamily in WA has been stuck as well. We have good envelopes and can’t mandate good design(!). But we found that the secret sauce, after reasonable, climate responsive design has been accomplished, is the switch to central heat pumps for domestic hot water and heat pumps for space heating (or amazing envelopes with elec resistance). This gets 3x energy performance for these uses over gas or electric resistance, and can get well beyond the 40s. Heat pumps work in all climates, but often need backup electric systems/defrost. The code here also caps the UA at 120% of the prescriptive UA so we don’t have the all-glass buildings that make any other claims of sustainability pretentious. Seattle not only got rid of gas in most new commercial buildings, but also most electric resistance, requiring heat pumps which are better for efficiency and better for the grid. …We had a discussion at LMN just today about what we may mean when we say a project met the 2030 Challenge, which is (intentionally?) vaguely worded. “All new buildings, developments and major renovations shall be designed to meet a fossil fuel, GHG-emitting, energy consumption performance standard of [80%] below the regional (or country) average/median for that building type. These targets may be met by implementing innovative sustainable design strategies, generating on-site renewable energy, and/or purchasing (20% maximum) off-site renewable energy.” If you look at the Zero Code, if offers some insight into how A2030 might be thinking about the quality of off-site renewable energy, as it is decremented based on the (perceived) market quality of off-site power. So if we have a project that achieves a 65% EUI reduction from an egregiously loose 2003 CBECS baseline, and then purchase off-site renewable energy of sufficient quality and quantity to get to 80%, it would presumably meet the 2030 Challenge...? But if the same building hit 55% EUI reduction, no amount of off-site renewable energy would get it to meet the 2030 challenge at the 80% target. Is that how you see it? I’m trying to figure out how to talk about it and would appreciate any insights. -Kjell From: Z Smith <

Thank you, Tate, for your ongoing efforts and dedication, alongside the rest of the 2030 Working Group. I understand and agree with your approach. And EHDD appreciated the DDX changes this year that allowed counting of Off-site Renewables. We’ve learned a lot working both with our client Sonoma Clean Power on the headquarters and on advocacy work for building electrification up and down the state in the past year. And it has affirmed for us that we can play a critical role nudging our clients towards supporting “green retail” power to drive the decarbonization of the grid. This goes way beyond our individual projects and links us up with the larger, societal push to a carbon-free economy by 2040 (or sooner?) We are still supporters of onsite PV and have completed a number of projects using PPAs. Until recently we were skeptical of buying green power and concerned that it would not result in additional renewable installations. However, in California at least this is all well regulated by WREGIS (Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System) under a detailed set of rules from the California Energy Commission. These include requirements to ensure additionality, connectivity to California’s grid, and severely restrict unbundled RECs. If you install onsite solar behind the meter it is above and beyond the state required RPS standard, so definitely additional. But, our understanding from Aimee Bailey at Silicon Valley Clean Energy, the same holds true for 100% green power purchased from a utility or CCA (community choice aggregator). They are all required to meet the state RPS (renewable portfolio standards), and any renewables they contract for above the RPS are in addition to the RPS. We were previously concerned that green power subscribers were just subsidizing energy providers to meet their RPS requirement. Utility scale solar is something like half the cost to install, so some will argue that is a better investment providing more renewables per $ than on-site solar. So we’ve been advocating for allowing 100% green power purchase via a utility or CCA as an option or supplement to onsite PV. Last year the Zero Code for California adopted this approach, and we understand Architecture 2030 is in process adopting these measures. I know not every state is in this situation. But often California is a trendsetter, so hopefully this context will provide some confidence for those who are skeptical of off-site renewables being legitimate. Regards, Brad Jacobson FAIA, LEED® AP, DBIA Principal Pier 1 The Embarcadero, Bay 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415-214-7276 [cid:G_190118_N24_webview_bb0303a9-c805-4097-ac97-3ab99950504f.jpg] From: Tate

I would argue that the answer is design as Lance suggests but it’s design enhanced by an understanding of climate, natural processes, building physics, and passive cooling and heating strategies. I think much of the current research on sustainable architecture is directed to improving established technologies, such as HVAC systems while making buildings tighter and better insulated. We can be very creative designers by  understanding how energy flows through the envelope and designing appropriately for the climate, so that the building transfers energy to interior and exterior heat sinks as needed. It is sculpting the envelope for energy flowing in and out responding to daily and seasonal cycles instead of just tightening and super insulating. I believe strict energy codes are important, but they are narrow in their definition of the comfort zone and do not consider passive systems enough. We propose and design with good orientation, massing, and envelope, but how much passive do we actually do, how much do we go beyond natural ventilation or direct solar gain? I have built and tested - as many others also- systems that cool by radiation, natural ventilation with sensors that activate fans according to prescribed rules, evaporative cooling with roof ponds and towers, cooling with green roofs with micro cooling devices and coils embedded in it that absorb energy from the space below and transfer to the atmosphere…. All have achieved impressive results in or close to comfort with very little or no energy use. However, they are very hard to implement because codes don’t consider them sufficiently or at all, and they are difficult to simulate with current tools. Passive systems are an important part of the process to design comfortable and resilient, low-carbon buildings that connect with the environment around them. They are also the only strategies that actually reduce emissions from building operations without any use of energy. We need to be able to do more of them in a truly creative manner, through design, and get credit for it.

Pablo and all, Completely agree that passive design comes first and is not used as well as it could be. In fact, I’ll go further and say that architects have had decades to choose to design correctly and have, by and large, failed to do so at scale, despite the heroics of this group. I have not seen our profession choose climate responsive design at the scale and urgency we need at this late hour. Codes, on the other hand, are an easy punching bag but have proven to be extremely effective at scale – in fact, the most effective thing that AIA is involved in re: energy use in buildings. If you think passive design and adequate comfort standards are under-represented in codes, I urge any and all of you to get involved in writing them. It is the main way forward for the scale and immediacy we need. It transforms the design and construction techniques, bring product to market, and provides a level playing field for all designers and builders in a region. Great codes, passive techniques, and great design are not mutually exclusive. -Kjell Fro

I would like to believe it is "all about design", but experience tells me otherwise.  Design will get you part-way there, but if clients are not willing (or able) to invest in efficient, all electric systems (geothermal or heat pumps) or super-insulated (expensive) envelope, how do you close the gap toward the 2030 targets?   Asserting that it is all about design puts the entire onus on architects when, in fact, client decisions and budget constraints are just as critical.  Humbly hoping to be persuaded otherwise....

Hi Brad, I have a more technical inquiry as we are currently considering the off-site renewable energy option for the next (2021) Washington State Energy Code. I’m very interested in your comments about the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System and your experience in procuring off-site energy as it relates to code. We can take this offline if you want. kanderson@lmnarchitects.com Thanks, Kjell F

Thanks Kjell, that’s how I see it. I’ll just add the 2030 Challenge/Zero Code are different than 2030 Commitment in this regard. The Challenge/Zero Code caps offsite RECs at 20%, to prioritize efficiency and onsite renewables in lieu of relatively inexpensive/impermanent RECs. 2030 Commitment doesn’t limit them because we’re focused on including big / tall projects that can’t meet the 20% max REC limit for lack of access to solar resources. My experience in the Midwest is that utilities fight onsite solar tooth and nail because of revenue erosion, and by extension will strongly oppose Zero Code for this reason. 9/10 times it is a utility related externality (net metering, size limitation, regulatory hurdle) that kills a net zero project. Until the rules change I expect this practice to continue and net zero market sector growth to remain stagnant. RECs are less effective b/c they are a only a proxy for carbon reduction, but I don’t see any pushback from utilities on them. Tate Walker AIA | LEED Fellow | WELL AP Director of Sustainability OPN Architects o: (608) 819-0260 | c: (608) 286-9397 | d: (608) 819-0844 | twalker@opnarchitects.com 301 N. Broom St., Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53703 www.opnarchitects.com From: Kjell

Speaking for myself: I didn’t say it’s “all about design”; I said studies show that 70-90% of impact is determined by early design decisions. (Source: Natural Capitalism.) That means 10-30% of impact is determined by systems and other technical choices. For example, if right-sizing a plan cuts, say, 15-20% out of area, volume, and materials, that’s a 15-20% reduction in total energy. I know of projects that cut 50-60% from the originally planned size of the building through right-sizing. This may or may not reduce pEUI noticeably, but it definitely cuts emissions substantially. Re: budget—again, the idea that higher performance has to mean higher costs is a misperception that probably has a lot to do with why the industry is “stagnating.” Reducing area cuts emissions and cost at the same time. And I’ve worked on projects that achieved significant energy reduction and NZE while coming in below budget and average market rates. High-performance systems generally cost more; smarter design doesn’t have to. On Thu, Jun 10, 2021

Good comments Lance, we’ll continue to push for more transparency in firm size / reporting metrics, but also note there is increasingly more data on this in out there in reports and the like. I’ll also clarify current signatories are up to 853, which includes all firms on LFRT and what I think of as the leading edge of diffusion of innovation curve. Fuzzy math since I don’t have the exact numbers – that’s 4.2% of 20k firms, over half of which are sole practitioners. To take it a step further, of the ~200k architects currently practicing, these 853 firms make up roughly 1/4 the profession. My point being we need to stop defining success as 100% adoption of a voluntary program. We have what we need to change the market, it is happening (albeit slowly), and late majority/laggards are going to need a different incentive (mandatory code compliance) before they hop on board. I’ll add we’re starting to see those codes on the horizon. [cid:image001.png@01D75DF0.2815A3C0] Tate Walker AIA | LEED Fellow | WELL AP Director of Sustainability OPN Architects o: (608) 819-0260 | c: (608) 286-9397 | d: (608) 819-0844 | twalker@opnarchitects.com 301 N. Broom St., Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53703 www.opnarchitects.com From: Lance H

Reporting firms listed as 311 in the latest published summary. If signatories are up to 853, then two-thirds of signatories aren’t reporting data. Why not...? On

Because your 311 number is 2 years old now... 853 is last month Tate Walker AIA | LEED Fellow | WELL AP Director of Sustainability OPN Architects o: (608) 819-0260 | c: (608) 286-9397 | d: (608) 819-0844 | twalker@opnarchitects.com 301 N. Broom St., Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53703 www.opnarchitects.com

So, unpublished data. 853 signatories. How many reporting?

The report for 2019 is the latest published. 682 signatories then, 311 firms reporting. That means the majority (55%) are/were not reporting. Question still stands: Why not...? https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/AIA_2030_BytheNumbers_2019_2.pdf

Again, 100% participation is the wrong metric for a voluntary program. A quick glance at the list of reporting firms in the directory says it all - this is the who’s who in practice today. I’m not sure what your angle is with these numbers other than to diminish the program’s impact, but I’ll share them for transparency’s sake. 2030 estimates 50% reporting at this time, up from previous years. This is despite delayed reporting deadlines, Covid, and launching a new tracking system all last year. I attribute many non-reporting firms this year to new signatories (280) who are not required to submit projects their first year. Also, firms who hadn’t reported in last 3 years were purged from the list, so year to year comparisons are ill advised. An ‘adjusted annual reporting firm metric’ is 66%. Overall a significant improvement, despite a rocky 2020. Tate Walker AIA | LEED Fellow | WELL AP Director of Sustainability OPN Architects o: (608) 819-0260 | c: (608) 286-9397 | d: (608) 819-0844 | twalker@opnarchitects.com 301 N. Broom St., Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53703 www.opnarchitects.com From: Lance Hos

Not trying to “diminish the impact,” Tate. Of course. As I understand it, this thread is about unpacking why the industry isn’t making *greater* progress, not about it not making progress of any kind. A quick glance shows these published numbers for 2030 reporting firms: 2019: 311 2018: 258 2017: 212 2016: 175 That’s a 77% increase in three years, which is great. You’ve given us the as-yet unpublished percentages for this past year (but not the actual number of reporting firms, unless I missed it). Best case from your numbers, 66% of 853 signatory firms is 562 reporting, which is an 80% increase in five years—an impressive number. However, that’s still just 2% of all architecture firms, if estimates of the number of firms are accurate. Even if the estimate is off by 100%, only 4% of firms are tracking energy data for their projects. To go from 1.5% to 2-4% in five years is roughly doubling every half decade. At this rate, it will take about three decades before every American architecture firm is taking this seriously. During that same period, if trends continue for performance, the average will get to the 2030 target around 2040, a decade late. So, going back to the original question as I understood it, what is going to accelerate the industry significantly...? Voluntary programs, however laudable and informative they are, clearly are not getting us where we need to be, at least not quickly enough. On Thu, Jun 10

At the risk of blatant oversimplification, Lance, here is what is going to get us there: 1. Ultra-efficient, all-electric buildings (prescribed by code) 2. All out support for the cleaning of the electric grid (through advocacy, and through educating our clients about the importance of Green Power procurement) 3. Grid-interactive, grid-optimal design that maximizes the effectiveness of the renewable resources available The first two of those goals are supported by AIA 2030. The third one is just emerging. Brad Jacobson FAIA, LEED® AP, DBIA Principal Pier 1 The Embarcadero, Bay 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415-214-7276 [cid:G_190118_N24_webview_bb0303a9-c805-4097-ac97-3ab99950504f.jpg]

I like that kind of clarity, Brad. Thx!

I would add to Brad's excellent list: Massive reuse, upgrade and electrification of our entire building stock. We can not do this with new net buildings, even if they are net zero and we get their embodied carbon to zero. We just don't build enough in the US. By my calcs, new construction represents about 1.2% of total US buildings, and the embodied carbon from that translates to about 2% of US emissions.Operating emission from all US buildings accounts for about 28% of US emissions and less than 1% of US emissions are from new buildings. Larry