development of an energy rating system for historic ...

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY RATING SYSTEM FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Mark Yuschak Kimberly Yuschak Dongyan Mu

October 1st, 2016 Prepared For: Sorgente Asset Management Inc. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation Note: Image taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Syracuse,_New_York/Historical_buildings

1

DISCLAIMER This Literature review was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Sorgente Asset Management, Inc. The authors of this report do not guarantee that the applicability of guidance in this review will lead to any particular outcome or result, nor do the authors assume any responsibility for its completeness or practicality of the information or any particular product disclosed, as information and products in this industry are continuously improving and advancing. Mark Yuschak Kimberly Yuschak Dongyan Mu For Sorgente Asset Management, Inc. Under Contract: Energy Rating System

Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

2

ABSTRACT When considering the rehabilitation of historic buildings we should not just be thinking about how much energy we can save, but in addition, what sustainable measures could be implemented as to not destroy the cultural integrity or the historic structure of the building. Performing a rehabilitation of a historic building is more complex than a building that does not contain the architectural importance or value. In this literature review, we have looked at the process of assessing a historic building under existing energy rating systems, addressing the historic value and the potential for energy efficiency as well as the economic values that can be found in this building typology and surrounding communities. By assessing the historic value of a building, we can identify the best compromises between the improvements and the preservation of the building, including the community where the building is located. The development of an energy rating system for historic properties could be achieved if further research is conducted, the appropriate tools and models are formulated, and thorough analysis and case studies achieved. Keywords, Historic buildings, Building evaluations, Energy efficiency, Green building rating system Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

3

METHODOLOGY The information compiled for this review was collected from March 15th, 2016 to September 15th, 2016. During this period, the authors worked collaboratively to collect data in order to outline the development of an energy rating system that addresses historic properties. The data collected for this report consisted of governmental reports, legal documents, academic and trade journals, and websites. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

7

I. Historic Buildings – Standards, Codes & Compliance What are Historic Buildings

Federal Standards for Historic Rehabilitation

International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)

II. Energy Rating Systems…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9

Overview of Energy Rating Systems

Adoptability of Energy Rating Systems by The U.S. Government

III. Review of Existing Rating Systems Addressing Historic Buildings………………………………………………………..

20

IV. Improving Energy Efficiency………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

24

V. Economic Assessment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

26

VI. Developing a Green Building Rating System………………………………………………………………………………………

28

VII. Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

34

Appendices

Appendix 1: Efficacy of LEED-‐certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for large New York City office buildings Appendix 2: Sustainability assessment of historic buildings: lesson learnt from an Italian case study through LEED rating system Appendix 3: GSA PROJECTS LEED INFORMATION


5

INTRODUCTION According to recent statistics presented by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), buildings account for 40% of global energy use, 25% of global water, 40% of our resources, 60% of global electricity use, and emit 1/3 of our green house gas emissions, making buildings the largest contributor of green house gases out of any other sector. This should come as no surprise when one considers how much time the average person spends indoors. Currently, the average American spends 90% of their time indoors. However daunting these numbers may be, there are significant opportunities to improve energy efficiency and indoor air quality in our existing building stock. For decades, research and development has led to improved energy efficiency technologies such as less energy intensive lighting systems and simulation software that allows buildings to be designed or retrofitted to their full, energy savings potential. These trends in the market have led to an overall shift in how we view and build our buildings. It has shaped public policy and led to the implementation of energy codes and national standards that establish a baseline design for energy efficiency in new construction buildings and retrofits. In addition to codes and standards, various energy rating systems or in other terms, 'green building certification' programs, have been created to offer guidance and assistance to property owners seeking additional means of sustainability and energy efficiency in their buildings. Various certification programs such as Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) and Green Globes program, have spent decades researching and developing a set of criteria among a set of categories related to environmental impact, energy efficiency, sustainability, and indoor environmental air quality for building typologies that include multifamily new construction, existing buildings, residential homes, and commercial. However, historic buildings are one type of building that many leaders in the industry have neglected over the years. With the underwhelming focus of integrating energy efficiency in historic preservation through local and federal building standards and public policy, an alternative option must be explored. Considering the growth and popularity of green building certification programs, it would be beneficial to explore a similar approach for historic buildings. This literature review will aim to identify existing energy rating systems that address historic properties, draw attention to missed opportunities and lessons learned, and examine the development of a new rating system that would explicitly address historic properties and their unique characteristics. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Historic Buildings -‐ Standards, Codes and Compliance What are Historic Buildings? According to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a historic property is "a prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places" (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2016). The National Register of Historic Places holds the nation's complete and official list of properties "recognized for their significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture" (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2016). Eligibility requires the evaluation of the building's significance, age, and integrity. However, not all buildings holding cultural and architectural significance will be recognized by, or officially listed under the National Register of Historic Places. It's important to recognize such designs and architectural characteristics when consulting building owners through a restoration or rehabilitation project, and avoid demolition at all costs. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires the federal government to consider the views of the public or any involved agencies in regards to the effects of a project carried out on a culturally significant building. Under this ruling, "A historic property need not be formally listed in the National Register in order to be considered under the Section 106 process" (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2016). With that in mind, a well rounded green building rating system would address all buildings holding architectural significance and should consider defining historic properties based off a number of criteria, such as being federally listed or not federally listed with a percent of total building holding some architectural significance. Such definitions and recognition would broaden the audience for this type of rating system and aim to raise awareness to architectural details worth preserving. Federal Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. Any building undergoing a rehabilitation that is under the jurisdiction of the federal government and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places must follow the standards that have been laid out by the Secretary of the Interior known as; The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and reads as follows:

The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-‐term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified for Federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is located


7

These Standards assist in the maintenance and the long-‐term preservation of the historic properties within the government’s portfolio of buildings. The Standard defines rehabilitation as, “…the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values” (National Park Service). Furthermore, under this standard there are four areas of treatment that address the preservation of a historic building which includes properties that are going to be; preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The National Park Service defines the rehabilitation of a historic building as:

As stated in the definition, the treatment “rehabilitation” assumes that at least some repair of alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building’s historic character. For example, certain treatments–if improperly applied–may cause or accelerate physical deterioration of the historic building. This can include using improper repointing or exterior masonry cleaning techniques, or introducing insulation that damages historic fabric. In almost all of these situations, use of these materials and treatments will result in a project that does not meet the Standards. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will fail to meet the Standards

Following the National Park Service and the Secretary of Interior Standards is an appropriate way of conducting rehabilitation to federal buildings. However, federal law, a building owner is not encouraged to implement energy efficiency measures or sustainable practices. International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) Under Chapter 501.6 of the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code, the following provisions govern historic buildings (IECC, 2015, Chapter 5): No provisions of this code relating to the construction, repair, alteration, restoration and movement of structures, and change of occupancy shall be mandatory for historic buildings provided a report has been submitted to the code official and signed by a registered design professional, or a representative of the State Historic Preservation Office or the historic preservation authority having jurisdiction, demonstrating that compliance with that provision would threaten, degrade or destroy the historic form, fabric or function of the building. The IECC Chapter 501.6 represents missed opportunities for implementing energy efficiency and sustainability measures under code compliance. There has been a lack of decision making amongst policy leaders regarding historic preservation and energy efficiency. Addressing the energy needs in a an energy rating system could help facilitate the conversation and raise awareness to energy potentials of historic properties.


8

II. Energy Rating Systems Overview of Energy Rating Systems In order to assess the development of an energy rating system for historic buildings, a review on the existing green building rating systems was conducted first. Because many of the outlined rating systems include energy/energy efficiency as a rating category, it is worth to check if those systems are applicable to historic buildings and if they can highlight the advantages over building restoration and preservation. By thoroughly examining energy rating systems in the current market, one could decide to either use an existing rating system, or develop a new system to address sustainability for historic buildings. Table 1 lists more than 20 green rating systems developed and applied to various building typologies around the world. See list below for general observations: 1) Many countries have implemented one, or multiple rating systems to assess sustainability opportunities of various buildings and communities. This presents a global trend in building design and management to promote resources/energy reservation and carbon emissions reduction. In some developing countries like India and Sir Lanka, policy makers have realized the benefits of sustainability by implementing energy measures for both new and existing buildings. Some countries such as US and Canada have developed several rating systems in order to promote sustainable guidance by addressing different impact categories, building typologies, environmental concerns, indoor air quality, as well as geographic conditions. 2) Some countries created their own rating systems, whereas others just tailor an existing system to meet their specific conditions. The latter is more time and cost efficient as opposed to introducing a new rating system into the market. 3) Currently, LEED is the most popular and widely adopted rating system for revision. It has been applied in many regions and tailored to different building typologies and climates, including LEED-‐ India, LEED-‐Canada, and LEED-‐international, etc. 4) Most rating systems are applicable to a wide range of buildings, new or existing buildings. Fewer systems focus solely on certain components of buildings or types, such as the interiors of spaces or residential buildings. For example, the NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines is only used to the residential buildings. In addition, many rating systems developed sub-‐systems to address specific requirements for various buildings. For example, the LEED has been developed for New Construction and Major Renovation (LEED-‐NC), Commercial Interior (LEEC-‐CI), and Core & Shell (LEED-‐CS), etc. The historic buildings renovation is usually treated as the existing buildings for analysis. 5) Different rating systems assess buildings across a number of environmental impact/performance categories. Almost all rating systems include energy, water, materials, resources, and indoor environment quality, but the credits/scores weighted to those categories differ among the rating systems. Some countries include specific categories in order to address their own environmental concerns. For example, soil conservation and erosion is included in the rating system in Taiwan because there are many concerns on soil in this region (Fmlink.com). Similarly, the LEED-‐US rates energy efficient heating in buildings, but this is not included in some Asian countries located in the equator climate zone. 6) Similar buildings may achieve different levels of certification under different rating systems. This is because the high levels of variation in scores/grades and their assigned weight for different impact Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

9

categories vary. For example, when using the Green Star and LEED to rate U.K. buildings, the grades of those buildings are usually higher than the grade achieved under the U.K. BREEAM (Reed et al. 2009). In addition, same levels of certification are not equivalent in terms of green features or environmental impacts in different rating systems (BRE 2008). This is to say a building rated with the LEED Platinum is not necessarily rated as the Excellent in BREEAM. 7) Some rating systems are relatively comprehensive but complex and time-‐intensive, such as LEED, while others are easy to implement and practice, like Green Globes (Smith et al. 2006). The costs for applying various green building rating systems are different as well. Based on the compression by FitzGerald Associates Architects 2011, the LEED rating system cost higher than the CGH and NGBS when applying all three systems to the same urban green buildings. In order to reduce the complexity and costs, many rating systems have developed online tools that can simplify the certification process. Easy to access and simple to implement rating system can promote application of the rating tool and in particular. All existing green building rating systems in Table 1 do not treat historic buildings as a specific building category. None of them address the preservation of historic or cultural values of a building. In many systems, preserving historic values of a building will not earn any credit. Alternatively, a building with a good rating may potentially damage the heritage characters (Powter and Ross, 2005). Some rating systems excluded several important aspects of sustainability, such as durability and life cycle energy, where preserved historic buildings can do well. Therefore, "point seeking" and strictly applying criteria of those building rating systems may take away the building’s potential for maximum sustainability. Rating Systems US LEED -‐ US

Green Globes -‐ US

Building Types New construction Commercial Interiors Core and Shell Existing buildings Office buildings

Built Green – Colorado

Detached homes Built Green – Washington Detached homes Multi-‐family residential Living Building Challenge New construction Major renovations (All buildings) Energy Star Residential NAHB Model Green Home Building New construction Guidelines Major renovations (Single-‐detached, low-‐ rise residential) Chicago Green Homes (CGH), Green Residential Homes Guide ANSI-‐Approved ICC-‐NAHB National


Rating Areas *Sustainable sites *Water efficiency *Energy and atmosphere *Materials resources *Indoor environment quality *Innovations and design processes *Project management *site *energy *water *resource, building materials and solid wastes *emission and other impacts *indoor environment *Energy *site *health and safety *material resource efficiency *resource conservation *Site *water *health and indoor air quality *material efficiency *Site *energy *materials *water *indoor quality *beauty and inspiration *Energy *water *Lot design *resource *energy *water *indoor environmental quality *operation, maintenance and homeowner education *global impact

10

Green Building Standard (NGBS) CANADA LEED -‐ Canada Green Globes -‐ Canada Built Green -‐ Canada

Same as LEED -‐ US Same as Green globe -‐US Single-‐detached Multi-‐family residential

AUSTRALIA Green Star – Australia, New Zealand, Office design South Africa Residential Retail Australia Greenhouse Building Rating Tenancies (AGBR) Base buildings Whole buildings ASIA Building environment assessment New buildings method (BEAM) – Hong Kong Existing buildings (All buildings) Comprehensive assessment system New construction for building environment efficiency Existing building (CASBEE) -‐ Japan Renovation Home Ecology, energy saving, waste reduction and health (EEWH) -‐ Taiwan

BCA Green Mark -‐ Singapore

New buildings Existing buildings

LEED-‐India GreenSL – Sir Lanka

Pearl BRS – Abu Dhabi

Community, Buildings and villas

GBI -‐ Malaysia EUROPE Haute Qualite Environnementale (HQE) -‐France Germany Sustainable Building Certificate (GSBC) -‐ Germany Building research environment assessment method consultancy (BREEAM) -‐ UK WORLDWIDE SBTool

Building development and operations New building Major refurbishment Tenant fitout Eco-‐homes All buildings


Same as LEED -‐ US Same as Green globe -‐US *Operational systems *building materials *finishes *indoor air quality *ventilation *waste *water *business practices *Management *Indoor environment quality *Energy *Transport *water *Materials *Land use and ecology *Emission *Innovation Light and power Central services *Site *materials *energy use *water use * indoor environment quality * innovation and performance enhancement *Energy efficiency *resource efficiency *loading environment *indoor environment

*Biodiversity *Greenery * Soil water content *Daily energy saving *Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction *Waste reduction *Indoor environment *Water resource *Sewage and garbage improvement *Energy efficiency *water efficiency *site and project management *indoor environment quality and environment protection *Innovation *Management *site *water *energy *IEQ *Materials *innovation *others *Management *site *water *energy *IEQ *Materials *innovation *Site *water *energy *IEQ *Materials *innovation *Eco-‐construction *Eco-‐management *Comfort *Health Modeled after the American and British standards *Management *health *energy *transport *water *materials *land use *wastes *pollution *Site *energy and resource consumption *indoor environmental quality *service quality *social and economic aspects

11

(Table 1) Literatures: Light House, 2015; fmlink.com; Waidyasekara et al., 2013; Reed et al., 2009; Say and Wood, 2008; Nguyen and Altan, 2011; Smith et al. 2006; Fowler and Rauch, 2006; Vierra, 2014; Yudelson, 2016; FitzGerald Associates Architects, 2011. Adoptability of Energy Rating Systems by The U.S. Government When evaluating the development and implementation of a national rating system intended for use on historic properties, one must consider the stakeholders involved, including government bodies. Every five years, under Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the DOE and GSA are to determine which third party green building rating system or systems will be adopted for federal buildings (U.S. House of Representatives, 2012). As of 2016, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has established two full reviews: 2006 and 2012. The following table outlines a timeline and description of the reports and documents associated with GSA's green building certification system review (Table 2). 2006

Name of Report

Description

Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary 2012

Completed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in July 2006, this GSA-‐ commissioned study is the agency’s first review of the green building certification system marketplace.

Name of Report Green Building Certification System Review 2012 Report

Description Completed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in May 2012, this GSA-‐ commissioned study is the agency’s second review of the green building certification system marketplace. This report conducts a deep dive analysis of the alignment of three green building certification systems (LEED, Green Globes, Living Building Challenge) with federal green building requirements. This supplemental report contains additional analysis of AHSRAE Standard 189.1 (Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings except Low-‐Rise Residential Buildings), the Department of Veterans Affairs Guiding Principals Compliance Assessment Program, and GSA’s Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Program. This document contains a summary of comments received from GSA’s Federal Register notice from February 5, 2013 that sought public comment on the findings from the EISA 436(h) Interagency Ad-‐hoc Discussion Group.

Green Building Certification System 2012 Report

Executive Summary of GBCS Comments GSA Green Building Certification Systems Review Letter to Sec Energy

The GSA Administrators letter to the Secretary of Energy that includes six recommendations on the federal government’s use of green building certification systems.

2014

Name of Report

Description

Green Building Certification System: Supplemental Review of USGBC’s LEED v4 Report

GSA’s supplemental review of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Version 4 (LEED v4) green building certification system and its alignment with federal green building requirements.

(Table 2) Note: Retrieved from http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/131983 Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

12

While PNNL's reviews didn't explicitly focus on historic properties, they did in fact present findings on green building rating systems in general and thus, which of the rating systems the United States Government favored most. These findings are important when considering the following: 1) Using a rating system currently available in the market for the use of historic buildings, or 2) Developing a national rating system intended for the use of historic sites, in order to preserve the value of historic buildings in regards to energy efficiency, health and environment, and sustainability In regards to option #1 above, if exploring the use of an existing rating system for federally owned or listed historic buildings in the U.S., the following review will act as a guide by exploring the preferred rating system by the U.S. government, and will have been endorsed by relevant government entities. However, if pursuing option #2, the following review will establish a baseline and a set of standards the federal government seeks in terms of sustainability, reliability, energy efficiency, and ease of use. The following sections will outline the key findings of both the 2006 and 2012 review as well as a hearing before the House of Representatives on “The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems”, which was in response to PNNL’s 2012 scientific review. A final ruling was then published on October 10th, 2014 by the Department of Energy. In the “Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary” of 2006, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory completed a review for use by the General Services Administration. This review was developed in response to Section 609 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 which states, "...the Administrator shall report to the relevant congressional committees of jurisdiction on the progress and next steps toward recognition of other credible sustainable building rating systems within the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) sustainable building procurement process." (Fowler and Raunch, 2006, pg. ii). Prior to the previously mentioned Act, all GSA projects were required to achieve green building certifications through the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED). The 2006 Act intended to recognize the evolution of alternative, sustainable building rating systems and helped to open the market for both private, and public sector green rating systems. This review on sustainable building rating systems provided information on rating systems during that time, but did not provide any sort or recommendation to the GSA. More than 30 green building systems were evaluated for this review, but since most of them were not able to meet GSA's basic requirements, the list was narrowed down to just five rating systems. They are as follows: • • • • •

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method) CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency) GBTool Green Globes™ U.S. LEED (Leadership in Energy And Environmental Design)


13

The five rating systems above were then further reviewed in accordance with GSA's objectives and drivers for sustainability. Drivers included federal regulations to date as well as GSA goals and missions associated with the design and operation of green buildings (Table 3). GSA Drivers for Use of a Rating System (2006) Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding (January 2006) Energy Policy Act of 2005 Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-‐11, Section 55, "Energy and Transportation Efficiency Management" (2002) Executive Order 13123, "Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management" (June 1999) Executive Order 13101, "Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and federal Acquisition" (September 1998) GSA Mission, Values, Priorities (FY06) GSA Sustainable Design Program Goals (FY06) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969) Clean Air Act (1990) Executive Order 13134 "Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and BioEnergy" (1999)

(Table 3) After determining the federal and GSA drivers for sustainability, seven criteria were developed to review the selected rating systems. The following table details the review criteria (Table 4).


14

Review Criteria Applicability Types of Projects: Rating system can be used on all GSA projects types, such as New Construction, Major Renovations, Tenant Build-‐Out (leases), and Operations and Maintenance. Type of Buildings: Rating system can be used on all GSA building types, such as Office Buildings, Courthouses, and Border Stations Development System Management: Identify the level of involvement in the development, funding, and management of the rating system by Government, Private Industry, Non-‐Governmental Organizations, and others. Development Approach: Identify if system was developed using a consensus-‐based approach, life cycle analysis, expert opinion approach, or other. Openness of Operations: Ability to gather information on the rating system membership and represented organizations. Transparency of Rating Systems: Ability to access relevant information either from the internet of other sources. Usability Cost: Identify the cost of using a system, including cost for use or rating system materials, cost of project registration, fees associated with certification, and time typically needed to complete an application Ease of Use: Complexity of the tools and technical knowledge needed to complete rating system process, especially for the optimization of energy use, environmentally preferable products use, and indoor environmental quality assessment Product Support: Availability and responsiveness of direct requests for assistance, availability of training, and usability of information available on the website, through case studies, documented inquires, and frequently asked questions System Maturity System Age: Identify when the rating system was developed, first used, first available for public use, and when the most recent revision was completed Number of Buildings: Identify the number of buildings participating in the rating system and the number of buildings that have completed the process for denotation as a green building Stability of System: Identify the processes that allow for full implementation of a rating system, including development, testing, and review process, systems for upgrades, process for modifications, and expected frequency of modifications Technical Content Relevance to Sustainability: Representative of sustainable design needs of the Federal government as identified in the Whole Building Design Guide Thoroughness: Detailed review of how rating system addresses key sustainable design characteristics such as optimizing Energy Use, using Environmentally Preferred Products, and enhancing Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Measurement comparison: Identify the mechanism used as the baseline for comparison, such as industry benchmark or checklist Measurability & Verification Standardization: Established collection procedures exists Quantification: Numeric measurements facilitate absolute and relative performance evaluation Certification/Verification Process: Define system for verifying sustainable design practices for a particular application, including who evaluates the application and at what level of detail do they review the applications Documentation: Identify what type of documentation is necessary and at what stages of the project the information is collected Verifiable/Defendable: Provide documentation of the actual state of the building with respect to the rating system evaluation; including costs and benefits of using the rating system Communicability Clarity: Well-‐defined, easily communicated, and clearly understood among multiple parties Versatility: Number of systems that use it as its basis for development or comparison Comparability: Amenable to normalization for comparisons over varying building types, locations, years, or different sustainable design characteristics Results Usability: Usability of rating system documentation for communicating the accomplishments of the building project

(Table 4) Note: Retrieved from "Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary" Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

15

GSA would then determine which rating systems would be most suitable for their projects by considering the following components: • A system that is applicable to the large scale and complexity of federal projects. • A stable rating system such that the evaluation of building performance is not subject to drastic change. • A system that tracks quantifiable achievements in sustainable design and is third party verified by a qualified assessor. • A system used in the current market with practitioner awareness. In the "Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary", Fowler and Rauch concluded the following: LEED is currently the dominant system in the United States market and is being adapted to multiple markets worldwide. The currently available LEED rating system addresses all of the GSA building and project types. A Product Development and Maintenance Manual is publicly available which governs how changes are made to LEED rating systems. The steps followed for the development of U.S. Green Building Council rating system products included technical development by committee, pilot testing, public comment period, approval by council membership, and then release for public use. For the existing LEED rating systems, minor updates can occur no more than once a year, while major updates are expected to occur on a 3-‐5 year cycle, and will follow a defined process including public comment period. Documentation of the quantifiable sustainable design measures are provided to the U.S. Green Building Council, the developer of the LEED rating system, for third party verification. The assessors have been trained and must pass an assessor examination. More than 400 U.S. buildings have received LEED ratings and more than 3400 buildings are registered and therefore potentially seeking certification. LEED is not only the U.S. market leader, but is also the most widely use rating system by Federal and state agencies, which makes it easy to communicate a building's sustainable design achievements with others (Fowler and Rauch, 2006, pg 30). The 2012 review by DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was the second review conducted under the act, the first one being 2006. As outlined earlier in the 2006 review, "GSA identified the U.S. Green building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system for use in the Federal Sector" (The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems, 2012). However, the 2012 review and U.S. House of Representatives Hearing resulted in a different conclusion. The review consisted of 14 green building rating systems. The following screening criteria were used to identify which of the 14 systems met minimum expectations of a green building rating system with respect to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA): • • •

Systems must employ whole building evaluation, addressing key sustainable design and operations metrics Systems must be available in the U.S. market Systems must have third party certification (See note below)


16

Please note that The Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Science defines a third part certification as being "independent of the product manufacturer, contractor, designer, and specifier". (Vierra, Assoc. AIA. LEED AP BD+C, 2012). The third party certification is "confirmation that a product [green building rating system] meets defined criteria of a standard". In this sense, the term "standard" would be in relation to building practices, created though "consensus processes by organizations such as ANSI, ASTM, or ASHRAE. Supporting the governance of standards and certifications is the International Standards Organization (ISO), which defines and develops worldwide standards that frequently become law of form the basis of industry norms" (Vierra, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C, 2012). 8 of the 14 systems were only available internationally, which immediately disqualified them from further review. Of the 6 remaining rating systems, 3 were deemed suitable of further consideration. They include: • • •

Green Building Initiative's Green Globes (2010) U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (2009) International Living Building Institute's Living Building Challenge™ (2011)

The following criteria were then used as the framework for analysis to evaluate the three systems further (Table 4): Detailed Criteria Independence Assessors have no stake in outcome Availability Assessors are available to review buildings Verification Documented verification method Transparency Documented approach for inclusion of public comments in standard development and updates Consensus Based Per OMB circular A-‐119 Robustness Efficient and sustainable use of water, energy, and other natural resources; Federal requirements are met for resource use as well as indoor environmental quality, building system controls, siting, integrated design, and renewable energy System Maturity Effectiveness links are available to the latest tools and standards; system included components to track performance post occupancy; system is consistently updated Usability Affordable, technical knowledge to use the system is readily available, well defined and easily understood, professional rigor National Recognition Recognized academically, within the private market and Federal sector

(Table 4)


17

In terms of energy efficiency, sustainability and occupant health and comfort, the “Robustness” criterion is the most notable. For existing buildings, there are 28 federal requirements considered for evaluating the robustness criteria. The following list was taken directly from the 2012 report and includes the source documents of the federal requirements in parentheses (Wang, Fowler & Sullivan, 2012, pg 7): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Integrated Assessment, Operation, and Management (Guiding Principles) Commissioning (Guiding Principles, EISA) Indoor Water (Guiding Principles, EPAct, EO 13423, EISA, EO 13514) Outdoor Water (Guiding Principles, EO 13423, EISA, EO 13514) Storm Water (Guiding Principles, EISA, EO 13514) Process Water (Guiding Principles, EPAct) Water-‐Efficient Products (Guiding Principles, EO 13514) Energy Efficiency (Guiding Principles, EPAct, EO 13423, EISA) On-‐Site Renewable Energy (Guiding Principles, Executive Order 13423, EISA) Measurement and Verification (Guiding Principles, EPAct, EISA) Benchmarking. (Guiding Principles) Ventilation (Guiding Principles) Thermal Comfort (Guiding Principles) Moisture Control (Guiding Principles) Integrated Pest Management (Guiding Principles) Daylighting (Guiding Principles) Low-‐Emitting Materials (Guiding Principles, EO 13514) Protect Indoor Air Quality during Construction (Guiding Principles) Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control (Guiding Principles) Recycled Content (Guiding Principles, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EO 13514) Biobased Content (Guiding Principles, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, EO 13514) Environmentally Preferable Products (Guiding Principles, EO 13514) Waste and Materials Management (Guiding Principles, EO 13514) Ozone Depleting Compounds (Guiding Principles, Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) 25. Acoustic (EISA) 26. Building System Controls (EISA) 27. Siting (EISA) 28. Greenhouse Gas (EISA) Of the 28 requirements above, LEED came in ahead of the other two systems and aligned with 27 out of the 28. LEED does not address greenhouse gas emissions, which is something to note if one were to develop a new rating system. Regarding measurability, as in how buildings under each rating system perform once all relative criteria have been met, the Living Building Challenge is most unique due to its emphasis on measured performance. The Living Building Challenge records the results of each building for a year after implementing the criteria and is fully occupied before that building becomes certified, whereas LEED and Green Globes certification is based on modeled and/or anticipated building performance. Measuring performance is critical to the Federal building sector because many of the federal requirements listed Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

18

above require the reporting of actual performance to establish where they are in energy reduction goals. (Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan, 2012). As stated earlier, consensus is another important criteria when evaluating the use of an energy rating system. Of the three systems, Living Building Challenge did not align with the definition of a “consensus-‐ based development process” (Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan, 2012, pg 4.7). Green Globes is ANSI certified, which is most valued, while LEED incorporates volunteers on their committees (considered third party reviewers) and releases pilot revisions before releasing new or updated versions (Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan, 2012). Another notable criterion is national recognition. Under this criterion, it was asked if the certification system was included in the curriculum of the top 20 architectural schools, based on a list provided by the American Institute of Architects, 2011. All three systems scored positively on this criterion. In conclusion, this review did not report on which system was more favorable, as the comparison was challenging due to differences in development. The following was stated: Green Globes uses a questionnaire-‐driven approach to guide the users through the design. LEED uses building codes and standards, and a minimum program requirements approach as its base. The Living Building Challenge uses a philosophy-‐based approach pushing for advanced building design and operations. Additionally, the certification systems have different strategies for achieving similar goals. In some cases there are multiple paths or approaches for achieving a goal within a certification. An example of the different options is energy use for new construction. Green Globes and LEED have performance and prescriptive path options, where Living Building Challenge requires 12 months of measured energy use data (Wang, Fowler, & Sullivan, 2012, pg 5.1). Following the 2012 review of “The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems”, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Sciences, Space, and Technology, and the Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight held an oversight hearing to examine GSA's most recent review of green building rating systems. The hearing allowed for a panel of witnesses to come forth and provide written testimonies on the energy rating systems reviewed in the 2012 report as well as alternatives to achieving energy efficiency targets. Witnesses included professors, architects, members of the Department of Energy, and President of U.S. Green Building Initiative. Despite both the 2006 and 2012 review favoring LEED, some testimonies strongly urged the House of Representatives to reframe from using LEED as a way of meeting energy efficiency goals. Dr. John H.Scofield, Professor of Physics, Oberlin College and member of the American Physical Society was one of the witnesses on the panel. He has written peer reviewed papers which analyze energy consumption by LEED certified commercial buildings, and one in particular which focuses on New York City buildings and how they performed after achieving LEED certification (see Appendix 1 for full report). Dr. John H. Scofield issued the following statements regarding energy rating systems (The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems, 2012, pg 70):


19

LEED certification has not been useful at reducing building primary energy consumption and, by inference, GHG emission associated with building operation...Buildings last a long time -‐ often more than 100 years, particularly in the case of Federal buildings. Studies have found that the energy used to operate a building over its lifetime is much greater than the energy used in its construction. There is no single characteristic more important for a green building than the lowering its annual energy consumption...But green building rating systems, in my opinion, are not moving this nation towards these important goals. They are, instead, a distraction, tapping our time and financial resources while yielding little documented reduction in the only metrics that matter. I am not aware of any comprehensive study that uses credible metered energy data for a large number of buildings to demonstrate the effectiveness of any green building rating system at reducing primary energy consumption. The overall Hearing, and the above statement by Dr. John H. Scofield present two promising, opportunities. First, the Hearing represents an open dialog that is taking place in regards to building standards and energy rating systems. While the federal government could ultimately decide to endorse just one rating system, they instead solicited feedback and statements from prominent professionals in the industry. It shows that a privately developed, well funded and scientifically backed energy rating system could be presented and considered if appropriate endorsements are made. The hearing allowed for public comment, research and testimonials and resulted in the General Services Administration keeping an open door policy regarding adoptability of energy rating systems, and will continue to do reviews on new research and/or rating systems every five years. Secondly, the research conducted by Dr. John, and others alike, present missed opportunities by energy rating systems and in particular, LEED. If developing a new rating system, whether it's specific to historic buildings or not, competition and recognition in the market will be key to its implementation and adoption by users. Addressing the missed opportunities by LEED, the most popular of rating systems, could promote an advantage in the market, and a more scientifically proven rating system that would yield higher energy reduction results.

Review of Existing Rating Systems Addressing Historic Buildings Researchers and building certification practitioners have realized the difficulties with using rating systems for historic buildings. Developers of select ratings systems have proposed a solution to the problem by modifying existing energy rating systems, where they can add specific requirements or criteria on the historic value and preservation. The following review outlines several modified energy rating systems for historic buildings. Cavallo 2005 presented a study that compared energy efficiencies of three historic residential buildings that conducted renovation under the restrictions imposed by historic-‐preservation standards in Illinois. The article first mentioned the effort on developing an energy rating system for historic buildings by the Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

20

Illinois’ Division of Energy and the Illinois Historic Presentation Agency. The fruit of this joined work was a rating system called home-‐energy rating system that stemmed mainly from the EPA’s Energy Star Homes program for residential buildings. This home-‐energy rating system was then applied to three buildings, where the scores for sustainability were assigned using the Architectural Energy Corporation's REM/Rate that is a popular software tool for residential energy analysis. The article also discussed how to apply this rating method in other States. Critically speaking, this article did not mention if preserving the historic values would provide any advantage in the rating system. In addition to comparing the three historic buildings, the study failed to compare their energy performance with non-‐historical buildings under the same rating system. Powter and Ross 2005 proposed to include ‘qualitative values’ (culture and social values) in rating heritage properties considering that the quantifiable values (energy use and efficiency) have been emphasized in the existing sustainability rating systems. "Culture-‐heritage conservation" is the concept described and is defined as protecting cultural objects that are in limited supply, promotes the use of existing resources; that is, resources that have previously received an investment in extraction, energy, and land. Early discussions on the development of an assessment system for historic buildings indicate that 20 percent of points should be assigned to culture-‐heritage criteria" (Powter and Ross, 2005, pg 9). The article then reviewed existing sustainable-‐building assessment systems and how they were applied to the heritage properties. Shortages of existing rating systems were discussed. Improving existing rating system were addressed by introducing the environmental-‐sustainability assessment criteria developed by the Heritage Conservation Directorate (HCD) of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). The rating system was originated from the Green Global for Existing Buildings and covered heritage buildings and the “projects affecting heritage property”. It addresses “both performance improvements and environmental and cultural sustainability”. See Table 5 for notable criteria suggested for inclusion in an environmental-‐sustainability assessment system for historic buildings. Key Criteria Audit & Baseline Performance Data & Information Prerequisites & Weighting Green Heritage Design

Embodied Energy Operating Energy Life-‐cycle Assessment Construction, Renovation, & Demolition Waste Management

Description Establish baseline performance through energy and water, assess building envelope to determine heat, air and moisture flow. Heritage designation, statement of cultural significance, overall conditions of building, environmental performance, data on heating appliances, light fixtures, historic structures Availability of heritage inventories, statements of significance, and historic structure could be prerequisites to other point assignments Identification of the effects of built-‐in sustainable characteristics of historic properties including elements such as tree shelter belts, shading effects of deep window reveals, and thermal mass of masonry walls A factor in life-‐cycle assessment Energy consumed by heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, equipment and appliances Assessment system for historic buildings including maintenance and anticipated investment cycles Quantify materials removed from buildings and the energy used in recycling and reusing them

Table 5 Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

21

The article also outlines the tools and research needed to develop a more effective assessment system for heritage properties, which should be considered and further researched. The following key points were presented in the article (Powter and Ross, 2005, pg 10): • Indicators and measures for cultural sustainability and performance of heritage properties • Tools with appropriate data to support assessment of performance of traditional materials and assemblies • Data on energy performance of buildings, particularly those erected between the 1940s and the 1970s • Application of state-‐of-‐the-‐art modeling tools to heritage buildings • Compilation and analysis of projects and buildings that achieve environmental and cultural sustainability goals "Sustainable building requires balancing economic, social, cultural, and financial demands with the need to responsibly manage human interaction with the natural environment" (Powter and Ross, 2005, pg 5) Jackson 2005 proposed to include the ‘embodied energy’ into analysis of the historic preservation projects. The ‘embodied energy’ is the “sum of all the energy required to extract, process, deliver and install the materials needed to construct a building”, which is same as the concept of life cycle energy use in the life cycle assessment (LCA). Involving ‘embodied energy’ in the rating system can address preserving or reusing materials and resources in old buildings, because life cycle energy will be reduced with using old materials. Also the article pointed out that the LEED-‐NC 2.1 rating system considered the reduction of the embodied energy in implicit way, still it was not considered as a category. Thus, the suggestion of using embodied energy on a future rating system could be taken into account on historic buildings. (The ‘embodied energy’ and LCA have been included into LEED 2009.) One shortage of this paper is it did not mention how to include more important culture and social values in a rating system. Frey 2007 analyzed the incorporation of “green” technologies into historic buildings under the LEED New Construction (LEED-‐NC) program and provided solid recommendations for improving green building standards in historic preservation. The thesis examined the history behind the creation of a rating system for sustainable buildings, the LEED-‐NC (New Construction) standard (available to use on 2000), including criteria, categories, points, and different products as well as concerns. The thesis later applied the revised LEED-‐NC rating system into comparison of historical buildings vs. non-‐historical buildings. Based on the analysis, historic buildings tend to accumulate fewer points on Sustainable site, water efficiency, and indoor environmental quality, equal points on Energy and atmosphere, and outscore on Materials and resources based on LEED-‐NC criteria. At the end of the analysis, the author not only proposed to add Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a comprehensive approach, but also gave a series of recommendations for each LEED-‐NC criteria as follow: Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

22

Sustainable Sites Recommended Changes 1. The intent of SS-‐5.2 is to provide a high ratio of open space to development to promote biodiversity. 2. A point should be offered for projects that rehabilitate buildings on National State, and/or Local Historic Registers. Materials and Resources Recommended Changes 1. It is recommended that MR 1.2 be awarded to projects that use 85% or more of the existing floors, ceilings and walls. 2. MR-‐1.3 offers credits for projects that make use of at least 50% of existing interiors. 3. Two points should be available under the interior reuse category; one point could be offered for re-‐use of 25% of materials, while a second point could be offered for re-‐using 50% of materials. 4. Re-‐use of 5-‐10% materials in existing buildings, such as doors, windows, fixtures, etc., should be assigned one credit under the MR 3.1. Innovation Points Recommended Changes Develop a “best practices guide” with information about how past historic projects have successfully obtained Innovation points.” In the article by Campagna 2008, the benefits of changes to LEED were discussed. The article first mentioned the Sustainable Preservation Coalition has been advising the USGBC to incorporate preservation, social, and cultural values into LEED. The LEED 2009 has made changes in response to suggestions from the Sustainable Preservation Coalition and other organizations. Those changes include: 1. LCA has been used to weigh credits gained in six measurement categories; 2. The system encourages the construction or renovation within a sense community; 3. The system encourages the use of public transportation; 4. The system encourages the innovation and regional bonus. A pilot version of LEED ND-‐ neighborhood Development particularly addressed historic preservation: NPD Credit 1-‐walkable streets and GIB credits 4 – existing building reuse, & 5 -‐ Historic building preservation and reuse. Based on this paper, a lot work will need to be done to include the qualitative social and cultural metrics in LEED 2009 and in LEED NPD. The WBDC Historic Preservation Subcommittee 2014 explored the potent revisions within five categories of the LEED rating system toward historical buildings and provided some kind of guidance to get the best outcome in terms of preservation and sustainability. The report suggested special attention to: • Sustainable Sites: Heat Island Reduction. • Water Efficiency: Water Use Reduction.


23

• Energy and Atmosphere: Minimum Energy Performance (shutters, awnings, overhangs, effective use of windows, etc.), On-‐Site Renewable Energy, Green Power, and Reuse of Historic Windows. • Materials and Resources: Source Reduction and Waste Management, Optimize Use of Indoor Air Quality Compliant Products, Exterior and Interior Materials. • Indoor Environmental Quality: Outside Air Introduction and Exhaust Systems, Controllability of Systems, Daylighting and Views.

Boarin et al. 2014 conducted a case study to assess historic buildings through GBC Historic Building, a new rating system developed by GBC Italia. The new rating system was stemmed from the International LEED, but included ‘historic values’ as a new area in order to address “all the specific issues related to preservation”. In addition, the new system treats “the energy efficiency as an opportunity to preserve and protect historical buildings, and not necessarily a change to its original content to be avoided”. The GBC Italia is the fewer rating system including historic values into analysis, which “bridges the gap between energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and cultural heritage preservation”. The way to rate historic values in this system could be referenced in developing an energy rating system for historic buildings in the U.S. (For full case study, see Appendix 2) Based on the reviewing of current efforts and practices in developing an energy rating system for historic buildings, it was found many systems had included or were scheduled to include rating categories, such as embodied energy or LCA into analysis, which could highlight historic restoration and preservation. However, the social and historic values were hardly addressed in any of the existing rating systems. Because developing metrics of qualitative social and historic values are very difficult, there are no common accepted metrics or standards for those values, which is why including such values in a rating system has not yet been successful. Currently, the GBC Italia is the only system that includes historic values, but its use is not available for buildings in the United States. . To date, one-‐third of GSA’s buildings certified under LEED are in fact historic buildings. For full list of GSA Projects registered under LEED (Current as of 2014), please see Appendix 3.

Improving Energy Efficiency The overlapping aspect of sustainability is: environmental, social, and economic. To address historic buildings, all three categories must carefully be researched and integrated. When historic buildings were first constructed they integrated natural daylight and ventilation, and solar orientation. Heating most likely came from locally grown timber. Materials were delivered to the site by human and animal power (low embodied energy). Keeping historic buildings entirety, re-‐using and refurbishing them, keeping a percentage of the components, and up grading the thermal and mechanical properties could provide excellent end results, Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

24

which are more sustainable. These should be the principles of our buildings conservation and sustainability agenda. By looking to reduce our carbon footprint and by re-‐using our existing buildings is one way we can achieve a carbon reduction. If an old building worked well before the use of modern technologies used to design buildings today, then they will continue to perform as originally intended, with the exception of energy. If promoting green building and sustainability then one must also promote the re-‐use of existing buildings including historic ones. As the population grows, the need for new buildings will be addressed. New buildings should be high performance using less energy and more recycled materials. However, In The Journal of The national Trust for Historic Preservation, Carl Elefante said, the greenest building is…one that is already built (2007). A study by the US Energy Information Administration of older commercial buildings built before 1920 shows an energy performance of an average BTU/sqft of 80,127. Comparing this figure to a new green building built in 2003 found a performance BTU’s/sqft of 79,703. These figures show that older buildings can perform almost as efficient as new buildings.

Source: Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Climate responsive design is now being used in the construction of green buildings, and in part, was in response to reviewing the design and construction of some existing buildings. In a study conducted by the Low Carbon Building Group (LCBG), at Oxford Brooks University on the Garth House owned by the Bicester Town Council in North Oxfordshire. A rehabilitation of a historic property showed a reduction in; CO2 by 48%, annual energy reduction of 58%, electricity usage down by 22%, and gas consumption reduced by 76% while still maintaining the historic character of the building. Furthermore, this refurbishing was conducting without following any green building rating system. The reason for not using the guidance of a rating system is due to the sold interest of measurable, and actual energy reduction outcomes (Gupta email conversation 2016). Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

25

V. Economic Assessment The majority of Americans and public officials see historic preservation as a legitimate function of the government (Mason 2005). Furthermore, according to 3ENCULT the European Energy for the Cultural Heritage, preservation is a process of qualitative and quantitative assessment of the cultural significance of the building and its surroundings. But economists only see the quantitative terms of historic preservation because they are not susceptible to building standards or economic methods of evaluation (Mason 2015). Despite how economists see historic preservation, it must remain in the discussion and on the table of decision-‐making and other discourses in order to preserve historic and cultural values. Expressing the full value of our historic buildings as a cultural expression and for the good of the public. Not much of a broad agreement to the benefits of historic preservation and energy conservation exists. Whatever lack of conversation thereof, the cost associated with the razing verse the construction of a new building must be explored regardless, and as a way to facilitate the need for revamping our existing building stock over constructing new buildings. In terms of historic properties, revitalizing existing Historic buildings outweigh the cost of a new building both economically and culturally. Using and keeping the existing structure saves the total embodied energy associated with new construction. According to The National Trust for Historic Preservation, it takes between 20 and 80 years for a new energy efficient building to recover the cost of energy consumed to construct it. Looking at it this way, not only can preservation pay but also, according to Donovan Rypkema (1991) it will debunk the 'myths’ regarding relative costs of building rehabilitation versus new construction. Rypkema goes on to show that “new construction is not necessarily less expansive or more profitable than rehabilitation” of existing buildings. “If no demolition is required, a major commercial rehabilitation will probably cost 12 percent less to 9 percent more than the cost of a comparable new construction with the typical building cost saving being about 4 percent”…On the other hand, if new construction requires incurring the costs of razing an existing building, the cost savings from rehabilitation should range from 3 percent to 16 percent". Further studies by Wolf, Horn, and Ramirez (1999) can to the same conclusion specifically the federal stock of historic buildings which are managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). A study was conducted on the Grand Central Arcade in Seattle’s Pioneer Square which calculated the cost of constructing a new building of equal size or rehabilitating the existing one. By rehabilitating the existing building it was calculated that a new building would use 109 billion BTU’s of energy, whereas preserving the building would save 92 billion BTU’s. Saving 92 billion BTU’s is equivalent to the amount of energy in 730,000 gallons of gasoline; the annual emission of greenhouse gases from 1,241 vehicles; 6,490 metric tons of CO₂, the carbon sequestered of 1,384 acres of fir forest, or the greenhouse gas emissions of recycling 2,185 tons of waste instead of depositing it into a landfill (Merlino 2011). In 2003, the City of New York Independent Budget Office conducted a study and the effect of historic district designation on real estate prices and found evidence of a significant price premium on properties in these districts. They concluded the extent of the premium varied from 22.6% to 71.8% year to year (New York City Independent Budget Office 2003, p2). Another study conducted for the New York City Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

26

Landmark Conservancy found that 3.4% of New York Coty’s lots are within the historic designated areas and that 9% of the city’s population’s lives within these areas. Investment in historic buildings accounts for 9,000 jobs for New Yorkers and an investment of ~$865,000,000 a year (Dept. of Buildings 2015). Beside the jobs that are created in construction in the historic district, tourism also adds to the economics of New York City. With 135,00 jobs, 98,000 directly relate to heritage tourism and 36,00 indirectly. Heritage tourism results in ~$6 billion in direct wages and ~$738 million in local taxes for New Yorkers (New York Statistic 2015). In another study conducted by Robin Leichenko, Edward Coulson and David Listokin (2001) found similar positive effect on property values in seven of nine Texas cities. Their study found an increase of 5 to 20% of buildings within historic designation district. Preserving historic buildings is a positive economic value. But does the public sector benefit from preserving historic buildings? There have been a number of studies that concentrate on this question and the answer is yes. Preserving historic buildings has a positive and significant benefit to the surrounding economy. A report conducted by Clarion Associates, et al, (2002) for the Colorado Historical Society confirm that, “Studies across the country have shown that historic preservation act as a powerful economic engine, creating tens of thousands of jobs and generating significant household income. Our research shows that this is especially true in Colorado….” This study was conducted between 1981 and 2002 and reported total expenditures of $1.5 billion on historic restoration in the state. This restoration work generated $522.7 million in household earning, million in business, which paid income taxes on this amount, 21,327 jobs, and generated $ 27.4 million in states sales tax and $10.8 million in personal income taxes (Colorado Historic Society 2002). Aside what states are doing, we must also look at historic preservation on the national level. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Main Street Program, has gained traction and has undertaken hundreds of communities across the US. The goal of this program is economic revitalization. Reviewing the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the data is consistent and reports a positive economic impact in the communities where it was implemented. 1,700 communities have participated in the Main Street Program since the early 1980’s, generating a positive impact on the local economy such as: • Total public and private reinvestment: $17 billion • Average reinvestment per community: $9.5 million • Net gain in business: $57,470 • Net gain in jobs: 231,682 • Number of buildings renovated 93,734 The National Historic Trust Main Street program has a positive impact on local communities and economies. This makes the argument for rehabilitating our historic buildings.


27

VI. Developing a Green Building Rating System The purpose of an energy rating system is to collect data and report information for decision making throughout the number of phases in the construction process. This includes the different uses of the buildings. The assessment should be based on a life cycle assessment, which produces an important long-‐ term gain for the owners, builders and the occupants (Hikmat & Saba 2009). By implementing a life cycle assessment, it will help to minimize the environmental impact of the building, solve problems of existing buildings, and address the Indoor Environment of the structure. Furthermore, by using a life cycle approach, the input and outputs of the components of the building will be addressed. These tools are in a state of constant evolution in order to stay current with technologies, materials, and the market. While there is no rating system that addresses historic buildings specifically, if one were to develop a system independent of what’s in the existing market, using life cycle assessment while considering all aspects of the community, the heritage properties, and federal requirements outlined previously in this report should be explored. Embodied energy is the energy that is used directly and indirectly in the production of materials from extraction, to production, transportation, and distribution of the assemblages of a building. All buildings, whether old or new, started with an environmental responsibility including depletion of natural resources, energy consumption, and the production of material for the construction industry. However, existing buildings such as historic ones have a lower embodied energy because most of the structure and other components could be saved and reused. Using this method is a valuable tool that facilitates the understood worth of an existing building. Quantifying the energy of a historic building that is slated to be torn down including the energy it takes to demolish it, carry it away and construct a new building that would replace the historic one would not be sustainable and would result in higher embodied energy. Embodied Carbon is the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere when a building is demolished and during the construction of a new building. In the United States carbon dioxide emissions from the construction industry including the operation of existing buildings accounts for 40% of greenhouse gas (GHG). Like embodied energy, embodied carbon is another method of quantifying the energy and materials that make up our historic buildings. By demolishing an existing building you are losing all the embodied carbon that was stored in the building and are expanding the carbon through demolition practices. By re-‐using our historic buildings, not only do we save the carbon but we also save the waste that is generated during the demolition. According to the Brookings Institution, it is estimated that 33% of the buildings in the US will be demolished and rebuilt by 2030, which based on the above economic and environmental impacts, should drive our market to salvage our historic buildings instead.


28

Estimated Amount of Buildings in the U.S. to be demolished and rebuilt by 2030: 33% of all Building Stock. (Source: Brookings Institution, 2004).

Besides the demolition of an existing building one must also consider infrastructure debris that comes from non-‐building components such as roads, clearing of land, vegetation and other miscellaneous materials associated with the construction of a new building. Reviewing the approach of European cities, which is a rich living symbol of Europe’s cultures and how they see historic buildings, is a much different approach than used here in the United States. Europe is more likely to save their buildings because they are a major part of the economy-‐drawing tourist from different parts of the world. Europe’s buildings are still lived in, used as museums or being occupied as office spaces. Europeans look at buildings as a value for both the community and intrinsic (the buildings impact on the environment). With this in mind you need to address historic buildings using a joint task, which includes conservation and energy efficiencies. By convening a team of multidisciplinary, one can achieve the reduction of energy and make a positive impact. According to the technical guidance on energy efficiency of historic buildings published by 3enCult, the important areas to consider are: 1. Preserving the historic building and in context the impact of a changing climate 2. Reduce the impact of climate change by means of energy upgrade to reduce GHG 3. Because of rising energy costs, it is important to keep maintenance and energy costs down. If we do the above and the following, buildings will have a better chance of survival when incorporating energy efficiency upgrades: 1. Properly maintained and managed buildings are building that are used as living spaces 2. Focus the energy upgrade on user comfort while still maintaining historic value 3. Lower energy consumption, which leads to lower energy bills and reduced energy needs It building a low carbon future for the community is important, then applying sustainable innovation in order to preserve and protect your historic building, your community, the culture, and the past is needed. All historic buildings are unique and must be analyzed independently from one another, as there is no readily available fix or “one size fits all” solution to the renovations undertook for building typologies and structures. First, start with a historical analysis of the building and see if it relates to the community. Precise knowledge of the building and surrounding community is key. Obtain information as to the structural and physical issues that are presented in the building. This also includes the time line of when the building was constructed. Knowing if and when any renovations were conducted should be documented. It may be helpful to follow the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

29

It is also advisable to conduct a thorough inventory or an in-‐depth analysis of the objects that are still present inside the dwelling, and may be of importance to the historical and cultural significant of the building and community. If the project is large or is challenging it is suggested that the use of the Raumbuch or room-‐by-‐room inventory documentation tool be used (Build UP). This will enable the experts that are conducting the analysis of the building to document the building down to room-‐by-‐room bases. It is important to conduct, gather, and investigate a building as required to do the necessary methodical and comprehensive interpretation of the structure in order to prepare the historic building for the renovation. This complete analysis will allow the owner(s), architects, conservators, engineers, and planner to evaluate the values of the historic building. The European market has done extensive studies on the approach of a baseline assessment for a historic building. Some additional questions to ask are: 1. What are your reasons for the renovation? a. What purposes will the building serve? Is the building changing function, what is the new role and is there a potential use of the building? b. Is this project part of a community or area in the city that is in transition? 2. Are there any regulation addressing or do you have to follow any regulation for the protection of the building? a. Is the building listed as a historical building? Are there any limitations b. What are you options or what options exist? Is there any opportunity for energy efficiency innovation? 3. Are you addressing the economic and social impact of your renovation? Are you making the most out of yours or your investor’s investment? 4. Are the appropriate professional being included and involved in the process? Are you using the Integrated Design approach during the planning process? Are you including in the discussion process historic building experts or agency? Are you including energy efficiency and sustainability experts who bring solutions to these areas and must be included thorough the process because of their experience in specific technologies and situation? To go further in this process the following should also be considered: • The buildings value: historic value, communal value, aesthetic value, and evidential value • What is the period of construction: gothic, roman, romantic, modern, liberty, federal, etc.…? • Type of construction materials: Clay, brick, concrete, wood, steel, Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

30

•

Does the building have public interest: is it landmarked, tourist attraction, community meeting points, social meeting

Phase Identify the Building

Geometric and exterior conditions

Building history & research, valuable aspects

Building materials survey what are the technological aspect of the building Test for physical and mechanical properties

Foundation and geotechnical survey

Objective Implements Evaluate the building both exterior Historic registry, research history, and interior. Locate the building and visual survey, community define its architectural style attachment, value, structural integrity, location to mass transit 3D survey, plans, elevation, facades, Laser scanner, visual, IR construction design, details, cracks, thermography, endoscopy, GPR, brick, windows & doors blower door Trace construction history, any Written report and any pictorial traumatic events, effect on the historical evidence, architect, building, structural improvements & original plans, analysis of cracks and measures, any cultural importance brick, exterior cladding Identify structural load bearing Use history of building, architectural columns, walls etc., what is the plans, limited destructive test, state of materials any preservation current technology to identify materials defects Outline strength parameters such Use non-‐destructive & micro-‐ as, shear, tension, & compression, destructive test, laboratory, test establish wall & roof composition samples extracted from building & site use history of building & technologies available at that time Soil, groundwater, soil layers, shape Penetration test, hole bore & & parameters of foundation, laboratory test, GPR & sonic composition tomography

Table 6 This is only a sample of the investigation path and knowledge that addresses historic buildings. However, solutions will need to be adapted to the needs of a specific area/building by using a case-‐to-‐case bases. Also, addressing climate zones and the proper methods of building and renovating in different climate zones is needed. To simplify: • Type of building • Use of building • Climate • Material • National and local regulations of historic properties and protection • Energy planning • Economic In the United States, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards that address historic buildings that fall under the Department of Interior authority. This includes all federal agencies and the building these agencies occupy. There are two standards; The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

31

& Reconstructing Historic Buildings, and Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. These two standards are only used for federal buildings, and buildings owners or other agencies whether state, county or local who are receiving funds from the federal grant-‐ in – aid funds. Otherwise, these standards are only voluntary and are used as guidance for the rehabilitation on any historic building. If you are following the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Preservation this is the standard that applies: 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. (Standards for Preservation p26) Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

32

Comparing this standard to that of the European model, this standard does not directly address or evaluate the historic value or the historic significance of the buildings. It does not state a detailed evaluation of the building structure, as does the European method. If you are following the Standards for Rehabilitation, this is what you will follow: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Standards for Rehabilitation p 69) Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

33

VII. SUMMARY

It is the opinion of this author that a combination of the European suggested guidelines and the United States guidelines for Historic Rehabilitation should be the basis for the development of a rating system. Furthermore, besides using the two guidelines above, LEED and or Green Globes should also be considered as they address the credit category. Depending on the scope of rehabilitation, Passive House concepts could also be incorporated into the rating system addressing the interior of the building. Such a project was undertaken in the UK using additional insulation and air sealing methods to achieve an energy reduction, but not putting a label on the building (Gupta 2016). As suggested above, evaluating the historic contents of the building is needed. Forming and utilizing an Integrated Design Approach could conduct this. Include on the design team a preservation specialist when assessing the components and materials of the building. Conduct a level 2 energy audit before the rehabilitation process. Evaluate the existing building for the purpose of determining the existing energy consumption and what can apply i.e. interior and exterior impact, and what options can be applied for the improvement of the thermal performance. Also, the economic impact the building has on the community. Involve the local historical society. Depending where the building is located, involve the National Historical Society. Research if the building is listed on any federal, state or local Historical Society registry. And determine the location to mass transit if the building is situated in an urban area. See Table 7 below for a matrix in the development of a rating system that applies to the rehabilitation of a historic building. Category Research history, historic registry

Protect existing materials and features

Pre rehabilitation energy audit Building exterior architectural cladding Environmental assessment Community Connectivity

Objectives Historical preservationist Integrated Design process Maintain historic registry

Code, Standards Community attachment, economic value, National Park Service, Interior of Secretary, European Standards Identify and retain material early on Repair existing material and features, duplication of materials should be considered, federal, state, local historic guidelines Historic preservationist Energy consumption, survey, Conduct a level 2 energy audit benchmarking ASHREA, BPI, EnergyStar Exterior conditions, construction Conduct a full and detail inspection design of existing condition. BPI, HERS, LEED Contamination interior and exterior, Follow EPA’s recommendation for lead, asbestos an Environmental assessment Building use, connection to the Consider schools, residential,


34

Tenant education

Storm water control

Light pollution control

Water usages and conservation

Energy

Materials

Indoor Environmental Quality

Post Energy Assessment

community, quality of life, connection to public transportation, services Historical value of building, what practices used in the construction process

commercial, public places and services, follow urban development plan including federal, state, & local. Sustainability goals of the building, what are the objectives, features included in the construction process, Rainwater harvesting, water Water collection for landscaping, efficient landscaping, heat island reduced heat island effect, green reduction roof During construction, light pollution Follow guideline from the following; requirements, interior shading International Dark Sky Association, devises security and entrances & Sky and Telescope, Illuminating exits, building grounds Engineering Society of North America Reduce water consumption for EPA WaterSense, U.S. Dept. of landscaping, toilets, showers, Interior, Water management faucets, bathroom, kitchens, utilities manual, U.S. Geological Survey, rooms, laundry appliances, NOAA, mechanical systems, Reduce energy demand and ASHREA, US Dept. of Energy, consumption, integrate renewable Energy Star Portfolio Manager, energy, green power, International Performance commissioning, measurement and Measurement & Verification verification, no refrigerants Protocol, Construction waste management Living Building Challenge, Healthy plan, source reduction, sustainable Building Network, Red List, Six materials, building reuse, recycling Chemicals, Well Building Institute, collection, material reuse, recycled Forest Stewardship Council, Building & reclaimed materials, reduced Green, INC GreenSpec, Building chemical exposer from materials, Materials Reuse Association, Cradle locally sourced, Life Cycle to Cradle Assessment Indoor air quality during Greenguard certification, EPA’s Air construction, low emitting paints, Quality During Construction, EPA’s coatings, adhesives, flooring, Indoor Air Quality website, ASHREA, composite wood, furniture, SMACNA, Green Seal Standards, furnishings, indoor chemicals & South Coast Air Quality pollution sources, humidity control, Management District, FloorScore thermal comfort, ventilation, green Program, Carpet and Rug Institute, cleaning and maintenance Post occupancy survey, ASHREA energy audit, interviews benchmarking, building with building staff and occupants, maintenance training, education, comfort,

Table 7. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

35

The interest of developing a rating system for historic buildings is gaining momentum among organizations, institutions, academics, and the public and the private sector. There are published guidelines. However, these guidelines only apply to federal buildings that are owned by a federal authority. Addressing buildings that are owned by the private sector, providing the local Historical Society lists them, only addresses the exterior components, such as windows, doors, facade and cladding. No attention is given to any interior components of the buildings. Local authority is only interested in the original look and feel of the building It does not address the energy efficiency or any other component of a green building system. The federal standard addresses not only the exterior but also pays attention to the interior component as well. However, this standard only addresses buildings owned and operated by a federal authority. For the private sector, the federal standard is only voluntary. By developing a rating system that specifically addresses historic buildings, we are not only including the federal holdings but also opening it up to both the private and the public sector. Energy rating systems will act as a guideline addressing both public and private holdings while addressing the economic value and energy efficiency potential, while maintaining the historic registry of the building if previously listed as such. An energy rating system should consider the occupants and the operation and maintenance. In terms of sustainability, restoring and rehabilitating our existing building stock, will reduce our carbon and ecological footprint, improve energy efficiency, preserve open space from development, and build a strong community. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

36

REFERENCES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (2015, January 1st). A Citizens Guide to Section 106 Review. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf Fowler, K. M., & Raunch, E. M. (2006). Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary . Pacific Northwest National Laboratory . Jester, T. C., & Park, S. C. (1993). Making Historic Properties Accessible. D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultrual Resources. Synertech Systems Corporation. (2007). Making Your Historic Building Energy Efficient: Volume 1 Principles & Approaches. Boulder: Office of Environmental Affairs. U.S. House of Representatives. (2012). The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems. U.S. Government Printing Office. Wang, N., Fowler, K. M., & Sullivan, R. S. (2012). Green Building Certification System Review. D.C.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Archived Building Statistical Reports,” New York City Department of Buildings, October 2015, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/codes_and_reference_materials/foil_instructions.shtml.

Build Up: The European Portal for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, www.buildup.eu/en Carl Elefante, "The Greenest Building Is...One That Is Already Built,” Forum Journal: The Journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 21, no. 4 (2007). Clarion Associates, BBC Research and Consulting, and Place Economics. "The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado.” Colorado: Colorado Historical Foundation; Colorado Historical Society, 2002. Hikmat HA, Saba FN. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries e case of Jordan. Building and Environment 2009; 44(5):1053e64 Historic Preservation, Robert Burley, FAIA, and Dan L. Peterson, AIA, Excerpt from The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, 13th edition ©2000 A sampling of Donovan Rypkema’s path-‐breaking work developing arguments supporting the economic viability of historic preservation: The Economics of Rehabilitation (1991), The Economics of Historic Preservation: a Community Leader’s Guide (1994, updated 2005). Energy, “Building Energy Data Book Energy Efficiency Solutions for Historic Buildings: A Handbook, edited by; Alexandra Troi, EURAC research, and Zeno Bastian, Passive House Institute, Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

37

Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings, Application of part L of the Building Regulations to historic and traditionally constructed buildings, November 2010, English Heritage; Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings; Application of part L on the Building Regulations to historic and traditionally constructed buildings; November 2010 Historic Preservation: At The Core Of A Dynamic New York; city report created for the New York Landmarks Conservancy, prepared by Place Economics, April 2016 Icomos Charter-‐ Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage (2003), International Council of Monuments and Sites Improving the Energy Efficiency of Historic Buildings A handbook of best practice examples, and technical solutions and research projects Jean Carroon, Sustainable Preservation; Greening Existing Buildings 2010, John Wiley and Sons, Inc Kathryn Rogers Merlino, Department of Architecture, University of Washington Prepared for: Washington State, Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation September 2011 LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction and Major Renovations, U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, DC 2009 LEED for Neighborhood Development and Historic Preservation, U.S.Green Building Council, Washington, DC March 2013 Leichenko, Robin M., Edward Coulson, and David Listokin. 2001. "Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: An Analysis of Texas Cities." Urban Studies. v.38, n.11, pp. 1973-‐87. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2002. Rebuilding Community: A Best Practices Toolkit for Historic Preservation and Redevelopment. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1997. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation ed.Technical Preservation Services, Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (2011) New York City Statistics,” New York City & Company, 2015, http://www.nycgo.com/research/nyc-‐statistics-‐page. Rajat Gupta BArch MSc PhD FRSA Professor of Sustainable Architecture and Climate Change. Director of the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD) Director of OISD: Low Carbon Building Group. Summary Report Overview Low-‐energy, in-‐situ refurbishment of a historic building Garth House, Bicester Department for Energy & Climate Change and Innovate UK’s Invest in Innovative Refurbishment programme Technical guidance on energy efficient renovation of historic buildings, European Commission Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

38

DG Research and Innovation; 3encult, Efficient Energy for EU Cultural Heritage, 2013 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships Heritage Preservation Services Washington, D.C. 1995 Wolf, Bradley, Donald Horn, and Constance Ramirez. 1999. Financing Historic Federal Buildings: an Analysis of Current Practice. Washington: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of Business Performance. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, Longitudinal-‐Employer Household Dynamics Program, 2015, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Light house, 2015. Overview of Green Building Rating Systems and their Relationship(s) with Wood. Light House Sustainable Building Centre. Vancouver, BC. Fmlink.com. A comparison of the world’s various green rating systems. RFP Office Space. http://fmlink.com/articles/a-‐comparison-‐of-‐the-‐worlds-‐various-‐green-‐rating-‐systems/ Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S., De Silva, M.L., Rameezdeen, R. 2013. Comparative study of green building rating systems: in terms of water efficiency and conservation. The Second World Construction Symposium 2013: Socio-‐Economic Sustainability in Construction 14-‐15 June 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., Schulte, K. 2009. International Comparison of Sustainable Rating Tools. JOSRE, 1(1): 1-‐21. Say, C. and Wood, A. 2008. Sustainable rating systems around the world. CTBUH Journal, 2008 Issue II. Nguyen, B. K., and Altan, H. 2011. Comparative Review of Five Sustainable Rating Systems. Procedia Engineering, 21: 376-‐386. Smith, T.M., Fischlein, M., Suh, S. Huelman P. 2006. Green building rating systems: a comparison of the LEED and Green Globes systems in the US. The Western Council of Industrial Workers. University of Minnesota. Fowlera, K.M., Rauch, E.M. 2006. Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary. General Services Administration, DE-‐AC05-‐76RL061830. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle. Vierra, S. 2014. Green Building Standards and Certification Systems. WBDC website. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/gbs.php Yudelson, J. 2016. Appendix A Green Building Rating Systems Around the World. Reinventing Green Building. New Society: New York. FitzGerald Associates Architects, 2011. Urban Green building rating systems cost comparison. Prepared for Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago. Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

39

http://www.homeinnovation.com/~/media/Files/Reports/UrbanGreenBuildingRatingSystemsCostComparison.ashx BRE, 2008. A Discussion Document Comparing International Environmental Assessment Methods for Buildings. BRE, Glasgow. Boarin, P., Guglielmino, D., Pisello, A.L., Cotana, F. 2014. Sustainability assessment of historic buildings: lesson learnt from an Italian case study through LEED® rating system. Energy Procedia, 61:1029 – 1032. Campagna, B.A. 2008. How changes to LEED will benefit existing and historic buildings. Published by National Trust Forum, National Trust for Historic Preservation. November/December 2008, XV (2). Cavallo, J. 2005. Capturing Energy-‐Efficiency Opportunities in Historic Houses. APT Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 19-‐ 23. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003159 Frey, Patrice J. 2007.“Measuring Up: The Performance of Historic Buildings Under the LEED-‐NC Green Building Rating System”. These for Master Degree. University of Pennsylvania. WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee. Last updated 2014. “Sustainable Historic Preservation”. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/sustainable_hp.php Powter, Andrew, Susan Ross. 2005. “Integrating Environmental and Cultural Sustainability for Heritage Properties”. APT Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 5-‐11. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003157 Jackson, Mike. 2005, Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: A Needed Reassessment. APT Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 47-‐52 Hensley, E. and Aguilar A. 2011. Improving Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services, National Park Services, US Department of the Interior. English Heritage. 2008. Energy conservation in traditional buildings. Building Services, Engineering and Safety Team, English Heritage: London, UK. Bradford S. Carpenter, PE, LEED AP. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. 2010. “The Designer’s Dilemma: Modern Performance Expectations and Historic Masonry Walls”. Symposium on Building Envelope Technology. Grimmer, Anne E, Jo Ellen Hensley, Liz Petrella, Audrey T. Tepper. 2011.The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Salomon, Nancy B. 2003. “Tapping the Synergies of Green Building and Historic Preservation” Architectural Record. Vol. 191 Issue 7. Meryman, Helena. 2005. “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies”. APT Bulletin, Vol. 36, No 4, pp. 31-‐38. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161 Roberts, Tristan. 2007. “Historic Preservation and Green Building: A Lasting Relationship”. https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/historic-‐preservation-‐and-‐green-‐building-‐lasting-‐relationship Development of an Energy Rating System for Historic Preservation

40

development of an energy rating system for historic ...

development of an energy rating system for historic ...

Suggest Documents

Development of an Energy Storage System for an E

Development of an Energy Management System

ENERGY STAR Data Center Infrastructure Rating Development ...

ENERGY STARÂ® Data Center Infrastructure Rating Development ...

Photovoltaic Module Energy Rating Methodology Development - NREL

ENERGY STARÂ® Data Center Infrastructure Rating Development ...

ENERGY STAR Data Center Infrastructure Rating Development ...

Development of an Organic Rankine Cycle system for exhaust energy ...

Development of a green road rating system for South ...

development of rating system for sustainable building in ... - wseas

adoption of dynamic simulation for an energy performance rating tool ...

LEEDÂ® for Homes Rating System - Davis Energy Group

An autonomous system designed for automatic detection and rating of ...

An autonomous system designed for automatic detection and rating of ...

Turkey's energy system development: linking an energy supply model ...

Pilot Version: LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System ...

Design and development of an expert system for rating the ... - CiteSeerX

A Rating System for Sustainability of Industrial

Development of Guideline for Rating the Physical

Towards an Openness Rating System for Open Source Software

Index-Velocity Rating Development for Rapidly Changing Flows in an ...

An NCAP Star Rating System for Older Occupants

Developing A vendor Rating System & Quality manual for an ... - Groups

Development of an Indoor Airflow Energy Harvesting System ... - MDPI