report from a seattle summit on performance...

Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building | Portland OR Photo Nic Lehoux Architectural Photography

Getting to Outcome-Based Building PerformanceReport from a Seattle Summit on Performance Outcomes

Prepared by

Mark Frankel Technical Director

Jim Edelson Director of Codes and Policy

New Buildings Institute

Ryan Colker Director Consultative CouncilPresidential Advisor

National Institute of Building Sciences

Event Sponsors

EVENT REPORT May 2015

Getting to Outcome-Based Building Performancei

Introduction 1

Summary of the Summit 1

Policy Goals for the Building Sector 3

Role of Energy Codes 4

Role of Benchmarking and Disclosure 5

Dividing Responsibility for Building Energy Performance 6

Design Team 6

OwnersDevelopers 10

Building Operators 10

Building Occupants 12

Tools and Strategies 13

Benchmarking and Disclosure 14

Codes 14

Performance Metrics 14

Performance Period 15

Case Studies 15

Metering and Feedback 16

Energy Modeling 16

ContractsLiability 17

Industry and Market Engagement 19

Behavioral Change 20

Measuring Performance 22

Energy Performance Metrics 22

Non-Energy Metrics 23

Performance Metrics for Codes and Policy 25

Policy Agenda 26

Scope and Structure of Codes and Policy 26

Practical Next Steps for Codes 27

Conclusions 28

Appendices 31

Appendix I - Summit Agenda 31

Appendix II - Attendees 32

Table of Contents

Getting to Outcome-Based Building Performance 1

Introduction It is widely understood that the building sector plays a major role in the energy economy and that achieving broadly adopted goals to reduce carbon emissions and energy impact will rely heavily on improvements to the energy performance of the building stock With this recognition has come increased attention on the energy performance characteristics of individual buildings and an increasing need for the building design and delivery process to engage more directly in efforts to improve building performance outcomes At the same time codes and policies are setting more and more aggressive performance targets for buildings which are driving an increased awareness that successful building performance relies not only on successful design strategies but also on the role and behavior of building owners operators and tenants

To better understand how the building industry can consistently deliver good building performance outcomes New Buildings Institute (NBI) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) convened a summit of national experts to focus on industry characteristics and needs that will support a move to performance outcomes This Summit was generously supported by industry sponsorships and took place in Seattle Washington in August 2014 This report is a summary of the issues and information developed at that meeting presented as a starting point in developing a roadmap to outcome-based performance

Summary of the SummitThe goal of advancing the buildings industry to focus on actual measured energy performance and life-cycle approaches has been a bit of a fairytale The Getting to Outcome-Based Performance Summit was intended to be a step on the path to ldquohappily ever after rdquo This gathering of industry thought leaders was convened to provide vision in the research policies and other solutions that will advance the industry 1 Immediately the group identified the need to focus in two key areasmdashcodes and policies and industry practice While these areas often involve different audiences the success of the overall advancement to outcome-based performance will require a coordinated approach Design and construction must be linked with operations and maintenance to realize performance goals

Participants identified several goals based on their vision for the industry These include

bull Service-based models for delivery where comfort and occupant experience are the deliverables

bull Refocus the modeling industry away from models solely as compliance and verification tools (~80 of their current use) to performance and design decision-making tools (~20 of their current use)

bull Move toward requirements where a projectrsquos energy use intensity (EUI) is predictable based on building type rather than large variations in EUI based on design decisions

1 Summit attendees are identified in Appendix II

Design and construction must be linked with operations and maintenance to realize performance goals

Getting to Outcome-Based Building Performance2

bull Develop a simple three-page energy code focused on performance outcome

In addition to these high-level goals participants identified several existing challenges and the steps necessary to overcome them Many of these were addressed in greater depth during the breakout sessions they provided an important starting point for the discussion and are listed below

bull Occupants Occupants must share clear direct responsibility for outcomes and be engaged in achieving the desired results

bull Operations Greater knowledge and skill is required in operationsmdashoperations and maintenance staff should no longer be relegated to the basement They are part of the team and should be compensated in line with their importance to the mission Unions could be part of this effort

bull Policymakers Policymakers need to understand what is actually possible and build policies and programs around those possibilities Such programs and policies should be built on feedback loops

bull Responsibility for Performance Building design construction and operations have become increasingly complex With the convergence of systems and growing complexity in interactions clear lines of responsibility seldom exist

bull Project Team Goals From day one complete project teams should be assembled and comfort and energy goals identified

bull Valuation Valuation criteria and corporate decision making need to shift The value of real estate should be more closely tied to performance The industry must move away from over-emphasis on minimizing first cost which is only perpetuated by the concept of payback Energy performance is an investment that increases net present value and generates other substantial economic and other benefits

bull Integrated Design Design-bid-build models should be sunset in favor of integrated design paths that yield integrated risk and reward structures

bull Change over time Current codes require design for a snapshot in time yet buildings evolve over their lifetime

bull Scale Outcomes beyond individual buildings are required This can drive policy development at the community level across multiple sectors to achieve the desired goals

bull Operations phase Codes regulate design and construction but what regulates operations Codes could fill that gap but should they

bull Building energy data A new framework for data based on real-time information is needed The Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) model is obsolete

The realization of all these goals could be supported by an increased focus on outcomes and the recommendations from this Summit The Summit was conducted as a series of breakout sessions interspersed with group discussion 2

2 Summit Agenda appears as Appendix I

Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse Long Beach CAPhoto Clark Construction


This report summarizes the key discussions and findings identified at the Summit and ties these issues together with additional information and narratives focused on advancing the building industry toward tools and practices to advance measured building performance outcomes

While the economics of energy efficiency and improved performance have long played a modest role in driving building performance improvement larger policy goals have become the primary driver over the past five years or so The widely adopted 2030 Challenge is a prime example In response to growing concern about carbon emissions and the potential for significant

climate change the Architecture 2030 organization issued the 2030 Challenge in 2006 Recognizing that building energy use was the largest single source of U S carbon emissions (largely through dependence on coal-fired electrical generation) Architecture 2030 proposed a goal to reduce new building energy use by 50 percent in the near term culminating in the achievement of carbon neutral zero net annual energy use for new buildings by the year 2030 (and a 50 reduction in existing building energy use over the same period)3 This bold but simply expressed goal captured the attention of the building industry and policymakers

and became widely adopted by organizations including the U S Congress American Institute of Architects (AIA) U S Green Building Council (USGBC) ASHRAE U S Conference of Mayors and a host of individual cities and states

The significance of the 2030 Challenge in this context is twofold bull To align with the goals of the Challenge energy codes have

incorporated aggressive stringency increases in recent adoption cycles This has put significant pressure on the building industry to adopt efficiency strategies

bull By defining a specific performance outcome (net zero energy by 2030) the Challenge has for the first time assigned a measurable energy performance metric to individual buildings

In subsequent sections this report will explore specific mechanisms and limitations of how codes and policies are driving a focus on building performance The report will also discuss the role of individual participants in delivering building performance what market barriers they face in this

3 From wwwArchitecture2030org

Policy Goals for the Building Sector

FIGURE 1 For 45 years energy codes and local programs have driven increases in energy efficiency Stretch codes are now being used to ldquoprimerdquo the market for upcoming code cycles and putting zero energy building performance within reach Courtesy NBI

0

20

40

60

80

1001975

1989 1999 2004 2007 2010 2015-20

Reach Code

Program

Program

Program

Program

ProgramProgram

Program

Actual Zero

ZNE

45 Years of Codes and Programs

CodeCode

Code

Code

Code

Code


The current set of codes and policies generate a disconnect between design requirements with predicted (modeled or asset) energy use on one side and actual energy use (operational) on the other The structure of governmental agencies and charging statutes tends to create this divide on each side of the Certificate of Occupancy

endeavor and what steps tools and strategies are needed to deliver measurable improvements in building performance outcomes

Role of Energy CodesEnergy codes have been an important driver of building-sector performance improvement for several decades defining a lsquofloorrsquo below which building performance-related characteristics cannot fall Incremental efficiency improvements have been adopted in each development cycle following industry performance trends and pushing up the bottom of the performance curve for new construction Recent code advances have been more aggressive and as more stringent requirements are adopted it is becoming increasingly challenging to identify incremental performance improvements for individual building features to continue this progression Energy codes are becoming more complex and thus more difficult to enforce Also energy codes address only a subset of building physical characteristics and features and do not include mechanisms to influence building performance in the operational phase (the stage in the building life-cycle where the energy is actually used) The energy code community is recognizing that the conventional scope and enforcement mechanisms of energy codes do not address what happens in the building once a certificate of occupancy has been issued

Codes and policies set a framework in which each project is delivered The current set of codes and policies generate a disconnect between design requirements with predicted (modeled or asset) energy use on one side and actual energy use (operational) on the other The structure of governmental agencies and charging statutes tends to create this divide on each side of the Certificate of Occupancy There is low awareness even of the existence of this problem among politicians building owners real estate developers and the eventual users of the buildings

In the Summit participants identified several barriers and potential solutions based on their perspective of the industry These include

Barrier 1 Resistance and pushback to creating accountability that lasts into the operational phase of the project Code enforcement mechanisms do not address building operation and contractual relationships for the design team do not typically extend past delivery of the building Further information provided by the owner in the design phase about building use patterns may not actually be accurate by the time the building is occupied The potential resolutions for this include getting all building stakeholders including owners operators and tenants ldquoon boardrdquo early in the process providing mechanisms to check in periodically on building performance and developing an optional path based on performance outcomes for compliance with codes Some contractual pathways already exist but are rarely used thus opening up the possibility that contractual solutions may be available


Barrier 2 How are energy performance requirements identified and what are the responsibilities of various parties if buildings do not perform as expected Potential solutions might include the development of systems that can continuously adjust energy targets based on operational modes and occupancy patterns (such as that done under the B3 program in Minnesota) set performance ranges rather than single-point EUI targets and focus enforcement efforts only upon the worst-performing buildings Another solution is to widely publicize the identification of buildings that do not meet their targets ndash using bad publicity as an enforcement mechanism

Barrier 3 Low awareness in the industry and the public at large of building energy performance One identified solution is widespread identification of the energy performance issue in all phases of energy measures and energy code education Another possible solution is more widespread use of public disclosure ordinances

The code development process includes key stakeholders and potential allies for any effort to incorporate performance outcome mechanisms into code and policy strategies These stakeholders must be engaged in any movement toward performance outcomes in codes Stakeholder categories and key participants include

bull Building owners (BOMA Leading Builders of America)

bull Operators amp Managers (IFMA)

bull Utilities (NARUC)

bull Policy-Jurisdictions (GrassrootsLocal Level National Governorrsquos Association National Association of Counties Urban Land Institute American Public Power Association National League of Cities National Conference of State Legislatures etc )

bull Building Officials (International Code Council)

bull Financelaw (AppraisersLenders Realtors American Bar Association Insurers)

Role of Benchmarking and DisclosureOne type of policy that is being widely adopted is the requirement that buildings be benchmarked and energy performance characteristics be disclosed on an annual basis Referred to as benchmarking and disclosure ordinances these policies typically mandate that recent building performance information be made available to potential buyers or tenants of the building In some jurisdictions such as New York City this information must also be available to the general public either through public reporting of the data or posting of the data at the building Other jurisdictions such as the City of Seattle require that the information be submitted to the city as a basis for evaluating the performance of the building stock as a whole

Benchmarking and disclosure are beginning to have several impacts on the building market By requiring building owners to collect and report energy performance information attention is drawn to building


performance especially if the building is part of a larger portfolio Also by allowing prospective buyers or tenants to compare energy use among prospective properties the energy use comparison becomes part of the market evaluation when considering alternate properties Relative energy performance therefore becomes a monetary consideration in these transactions In a competitive real estate market this comparison can have a significant impact And as developers and building owners recognize that relative energy performance has a market value they begin to expect that their design teams can specifically address building performance as part of the design contract

Over time it is anticipated that the effects of benchmarking and disclosure on the commercial real estate market will increase

Although the role of top-notch building operators in maintaining good building performance has long been recognized the broad perception in the industry has been focused on the concept that building energy efficiency is primarily driven by building design characteristics and therefore delivered by the design team There is no question that design has a major influence on

building energy performance but as design features become more efficient the proportion of building energy use associated with building operation increases and the role of building operators and tenant behavior in building energy use becomes more and more significant In fact successful achievement of aggressive policy goals will come to rely more and more on integrating good building operations and engaged tenant behaviors into the delivery and management of buildings

There are key barriers in the market today which make it difficult to assign responsibility for building performance outcomes across all of the players who impact and control this outcome

Design TeamNot surprisingly building design plays a major role in influencing the energy use characteristics of the building Nearly every design decision from building layout and glazing patterns to system selection characteristics and controls will impact the efficiency and performance of the building And with tools like energy modeling the design team can predict strategies which increase or

Dividing Responsibility for Building Energy Performance

Whorsquos Responsible for Ongoing Energy Use

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Architect teamEngineering

team BuildingOwner Facilities

Manager BuildingOccupants

457 457

943

800

686

ldquoEveryone and No Onerdquo

FIGURE 2 A group of building industry thought leaders were asked to share their view of who is responsible for building energy use over time Courtesy NIBS


reduce the relative energy use patterns of the building Because it is possible to identify building features which can reduce energy use energy codes have focused on requiring specific building characteristics to do so

What the design team has less ability to predict or control is whether or not the systems designed into the building will be used as intended and whether the owner or occupants will utilize the building in the patterns and uses anticipated in the design process In fact there are currently very few mechanisms by which the assumptions made by the design team about how the building will be operated and occupied can be tracked or verified by the users of the building over the long term

The recognition that building occupants and operators need to be able to successfully engage in maintaining and improving building performance has significant implications for the design process that delivers the buildings To explore this Summit sessions were focused on how the design and delivery process needs to evolve to enable more effective engagement of building operators and tenants in meaningful decisions about ongoing building performance Key barriers include

bull Lack of feedback to designers on how previous buildings are actually being used and on how they are actually performing

bull Lack of understanding by operatorsoccupants of how systems are designed to be used

bull Lack of mechanisms to adjust performance expectations based on actual building use patterns

bull Lack of mechanisms to communicate about anticipated use patterns between owneroccupant and design team in the design phase

bull Lack of mechanisms to assign responsibility for performance to the parties responsible for different aspects of performance

One concept that remains to be more fully explored is that of ldquodesign for operation rdquo This concept encompasses the idea that there are key systems and features in the building that rely on effective engagement by building operators and tenants if intended outcomes are to be achieved Features like performance feedback and metering intuitive and understandable controls and good communication about building systems and operation assumptions by the design team to the operators are elements of this strategy

NBI copy 2014

We Need to Evolve Processes Design + Construction + Operations amp Maintenance

Design Team

Construction Team

Operations amp Maintenance Team

FIGURE 3 Operation teams and tenants need to be engaged early in the design process and AEC team members need to be engaged during early and ongoing operations Courtesy NBI


All of the barriers listed above suggest that changes need to be made to the design delivery model and these will have contractual liability and procedural implications on the design process

There are several models for the design delivery process that may contain elements of the strategies needed to deliver better building operation and there are some examples of new delivery methods that specifically focus on building performance outcomes For many years the concept of performance-based design has been considered as a mechanism to deliver better building performance outcomes The promise of this methodology has been severely limited by a lack of information about how to divide responsibilities for building performance among designers building ownersoperators and tenants For example if the building design intent is for an office building operating 50 hours a week and the tenants work 80 hours a week how can the modified energy performance impacts be allocated among the participants

Recently the GSA and other agencies have undertaken a more aggressive approach to performance contracting successfully procuring several projects that include performance requirements A number of these strategies were profiled in a webinar developed in preparation for the Summit and can be reviewed separately 4

Architects engineers and contractors (AEC) will play a significant role in the transition of the building process to one focused on outcomes However several barriers currently exist that must be addressedmdashparticularly within current procurement and delivery models and within the design and construction process

In general the following needs were identified to overcome these barriers

bull Need to accelerate industry transformation

bull Need to redefine the project delivery process

bull Need to redefine the role and value of AEC contributions (particularly in delivery of outcome-based performance)

bull Need to engage owners to adopt new methods for capturing a propertyrsquos value

Members of the AEC community ultimately need an impetus to update their standards of practice and implement practices that serve to advance the professions Access to information and the skills to competently rely on that information will be essential However much of the needed data feedback loops and knowledge are lacking

Project owners have a significant role in providing information and triggering transitions within the AEC community The role of owners and their influence on the design and construction team is discussed below

While owner recognition of the value of long-term engagement of the AEC team in the project is lacking the current business model for design

4 httpnewbuildingsorgoutcome-based-performance-summit


or construction services does not support life-cycle engagement Post-occupancy evaluations are not standard practice thus precluding potential feedback loops to understand (and affect) building performance and occupant behavior The focus on delivery of a product (a building) rather than the services provided by that building perpetuate such short-term engagements New business models based on those used within other sectors of the economy may be worthy of consideration These include the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Service Management Model5 or a Standard Product Management Framework

Effectively linking decisions made in design with the buildingrsquos performance in operations will require advancements in energy modelingmdashboth in the technical capabilities and how and when they are actually used Improvements needed in the modeling process are presented in the Tools and Strategies section below

Architects and engineers play important roles in the design process and in shaping communities but have difficulty leading especially when it will challenge the clientrsquos perceptions Shifting this perception and supporting advancements is necessary Organizations like AIA and ASHRAE should support these visions and drive the changes necessary within their membership Increased availability of education and materials on business planning (including potential for new models or areas of service) financial literacy communication with business and discussions on advancing the industry are required

To overcome the barriers identified above the following potential solutions were identified

bull Advance the use of energy modeling through creation of a standardized scope of service that drives towards outcomes and supports utilization throughout design and into occupancy Modeling requirements and protocols should be aligned across codes and other regulations utility incentives rating programs and other users of modeling results

bull Increase the education of stakeholders in the building process including owners designers contractors and members of the public served by the industry Specific areas of focus include the value of investment in life-cycle approaches providing AEC stakeholders with financial and business literacy and understanding behavioral science

bull Update codes and other policies to implement minimum performance requirements and serve as champions of innovation

bull Energy performance data and feedback loops must improve Data requires standardized methodologies for collection and reporting and must undergo regular updating The European Union model for energy performance data may prove beneficial Energy certificates may ultimately tie to financial performance

5 See httpwwwitil-officialsitecom

Effectively linking decisions made in design with the buildingrsquos performance in operations will require advancements in energy modelingmdashboth in the technical capabilities and how and when they are actually used


OwnersDevelopersThe role of building ownersdevelopers in the overall achievement of building performance varies widely based on the overall owner characteristics Owner operators including government universities hospital and corporate campuses tend to have a long-term focus and can exhibit significant control over many stages within the building life-cycle This ownership model can be very conducive to implementation of outcome-based requirements as evidenced by GSA and the states of Washington and California

Developers with a short-term ownership horizon represent the other end of the spectrum and may be the most challenging to implementation of outcome requirements Often they procure buildings on speculation without information about future tenants upon which to base performance requirements The first-cost focus of these owners results in the impacts of initial design decisions being transferred to the subsequent owner Several Summit participants expressed a strong desire to transition this business model

Project programming and the ownerrsquos performance requirements (OPR) set the stage for the desired project outcomes but they are often not robust resulting in weak follow-through Additionally the end users and operations staff are not fully engaged in outlining the project goals or accessible during the design and construction process to help clarify project needs These deficiencies result in the design and construction team basing decisions on unclear desired outcomes Owner budgeting practices can influence decision making in design (particularly capital versus operational budgets) but many AEC firms lack the financial literacy to address these influencers Owners also do not understand the value of having the design and construction team engaged in the project once the building is occupied An ownerrsquos engagement with tenants will significantly influence the ability to achieve outcomes Leasing terms can help align building owner goals with actions undertaken by tenants

Building OperatorsFundamental to the achievement of outcomes is the existence of effective operationsmdashincluding policies procedures personnel and investment There are key limitations in the current state of building operations and management with respect to the changes necessary to achieve outcome-based requirements

Currently the sophistication and effectiveness of building operations varies widely Good operations programs do exist but they are typically isolated cases and not the norm Summit discussions on this topic questioned whether the focus should be on improving the top five percent of the industry or in bringing up the rest of the industry Case studies specifically focused on small buildings operations can help dispel the myth that truly effective operations can only be accomplished in large buildings with sophisticated staffs and diagnostic tools As a whole the operations segment is behind and struggling to keep up with the evolution of the industry The expansion of technology has existing operations staff under prepared While up-and-coming technologically savvy

Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Portland OR


staff has the willingness to embrace the technology they lack the experience and knowledge underlying the technology and the functions they perform Meanwhile a significant percentage of the current skilled manpower in the operations industry is nearing retirement

Building the skills and motivation of operations staff will be essential for realizing desired outcomes Certifications can help but the demand needs to be built through owner requirements Credible data and studies on the link between operator training and building performance are needed 6 Respect for building operations as a career is required Establishing a recognized career track including community college curricula and recognition by the Department of Labor can help

Providing the right motivational triggers can drive the results desired One potential motivator is the use of benchmarking and disclosuremdashas one participant put it ldquountil you keep score itrsquos only practice rdquo Benchmarking and disclosure can help drive competition within a set of comparable buildings 7 Instilling a competitive nature in operations staff can drive attention to the details and data necessary to achieve results

The relationship between building operations teams and corporate management can play a significant role in their ability to effectively produce results Like most departments facility managers are under increased pressure to do more with less This includes reducing staff sizes and exploring potential outsourcing of operations activities Organizational leaders may not fully understand the resources necessary to effectively manage building operationsmdashif the building is clean and occupants are happy everything must be functioning properly This lack of visibility and understanding can lead to the provision of budgets that do not reflect the actual investments required for effective operations Understanding owner motivations (money) and educating them as to the risks of poor performance can help

Too much time and attention of building operators is devoted to ldquoputting out firesrdquo and problem solving and not to the strategic long-term planning and programs necessary Providing better data and analytics can help move away from the perpetual crisis modemdashrather than putting out the fires letrsquos reduce the fuel sources An increased focus on information flows and the engagement of diagnostics software providers to identify the most valuable information for action is required

Raising the visibility of operations and the importance to the overall organizational mission is essential However many departments are either ill equipped to deliver such a message or just do not have the necessary bandwidth Operations departments often are not consulted by higher ups and they are often not skilled at communicating their needs or credible if they

6 A potential starting point is a study of the Building Operator Training and Certification program ResearchIntoAction Evaluation Of The Building Operator Training And Certification (BOC) Program In The Northeast httpwwwputnampricecompdfNEEPBOCevaluationpdf 7 Participants did discuss the current state of disclosure and its impact on the market Overall tenants are not asking for disclosure data but are focused on visible marks of performance (LEED EnergyStar Green Globes etc) Whether public or not brokers always had access to energy use data but have not been utilizing it

Raising the visibility of operations and the importance to the overall organizational mission is essential


are Accountability at a building level should be established to get owner buy-in and trigger deeper focus on why performance changes are occurring

Tenant-occupied buildings may present specific challenges including where savings from operational improvements may flow (to the tenants or to the owner) and how such investments can be optimized to trigger savings Lease structures have a significant role to play in investment decision making

With the expanding role of commissioning (and its potential function for the verification of the capability to achieve outcomes) defining filling and smoothing the gap of where the role of commissioning ends and operations begins is needed Monitor-based commissioning can help enhance the

capabilities of operations staff but effective data analysis is required

Recognizing that building operation is just one piece of the puzzle it is important to acknowledge that effective operation requires good engineering Good building operation alone can only go so far

Leadership in raising the visibility of operations is necessary Organizations like BOMA IFMA and unions should lead The lack of a member-driven organization for building engineers is an issue

While not directly related to the topic Summit discussions did identify the need to engage utilities specifically on their motivation for incentive programsmdashaiming for long-term performance

Building OccupantsThe role of occupants in building performance is growing for a number of reasons As buildings become more efficient the percent of total building energy use that is associated with occupant loads such as computers charging equipment and other office equipment is increasing Most projections suggest that plug loads are growing as an absolute load as well 8 Meanwhile strategies to reduce building energy use are tending to rely on changes to occupant behavior and use patterns more directly These trends suggest that it is becoming more and more important to engage building occupants in meaningful approaches to managing building energy use

Building design characteristics can play a major role in enabling tenants to improve building efficiency Some design features can be used to lsquohard codersquo occupant savings Strategies like occupancyvacancy sensors for lighting HVAC system zoning that allows for flexibility daylight dimming and switched

8 httpnewbuildingsorgresources-energy-efficient-plug-loads

Practicing Sustainability SERA ARCHITECTS INC copy 2013

ENERGY USE PREDICTED vs ACTUAL

FIGURE 4 Many different actors during the design construction and operational process contribute to a buildingrsquos energy use intensity (EUI) with varying expectations Courtesy SERA Architects


outlets that respond to occupant activity but do not rely directly on occupant behavior to effectively save energy But there are also a range of potential building features that can directly enable energy savings from efficient behavior changes These can range from circulation and core space designs that encourage use of stairways to metering and information systems that provide direct feedback to occupants on energy use thereby enabling better decisions on the part of occupants to save building energy Feedback is critical if occupants are expected to directly engage in building performance and feedback systems need to be designed and accounted for in the design process

Many projects have demonstrated strategies to engage building tenants in energy efficiency Successful projects often include direct or perceived competitions among tenant groups or between buildings Direct competitions set up specific building performance goals and reward tenants for achieving or maintaining building performance goals In some cases these competitions can be national in scope as between college dormitories or campuses in competitions run by Lucid Design or other firms In other cases the competition is more indirect when tenants are given metrics comparing their energy performance to a neighborhood average Both strategies have been shown to lead to energy savings though there has been some concern that the effect is temporary Both strategies also directly rely on building performance feedback that is made available to building occupants to guide behavior

Other tenant interventions can have a more direct financial incentive Green leases may include provisions that specifically incentivize building energy performance for the tenants In some markets tenants may insist on lease structures that allow them to control some leasing costs through efficiency strategies But overall in the market there are many barriers to directly incentivizing building occupants to engage in energy performance management Most leases do not incentivize the tenants to reduce energy use and often it is the building owner not the tenant who benefits from these performance improvements More commonly there is no direct feedback to building occupants to allow them to make informed choices about building performance improvement

Successfully engaging tenants in improved building operation will require a combination of design features that support this engagement more direct financial incentives for better behavior and the removal of financial barriers and a growing perception among building occupants of the critical role they can play in managing building energy use

A key aspect of the Summit was to focus on tools and strategies that would be needed to more broadly move the building industry toward building performance outcomes A number of needs and opportunities were identified that together will contribute to progress on making building performance outcomes a widely understood goal and to developing mechanisms which can support better performance outcomes

Tools and Strategies


Benchmarking and DisclosureAs discussed previously the adoption of benchmarking and disclosure ordinances and the wide public dissemination of information about building performance will significantly increase market awareness of building performance and lead to the incorporation of building performance information into building and leasing valuations

CodesThe current structure of building codes also hampers a shift to focus on outcomes The codes are written to influence design not performance The perception is that a shift to outcome-based codes may add complexity time and schedule uncertainty The role of LEED in influencing the building industry and owners was cited as a potential distraction from the importance of performance However LEED does have the opportunity to help raise performance requirements and build the case for operational outcomes A more in-depth discussion of codes as a mechanism to advance outcome-based performance is included below

Performance MetricsEffectively setting building targets and performance metrics will be essential in advancing application of outcome-based requirements Depending on the specific form of requirements different methodologies could be used Some of the methods and challenges associated with each are identified below

bull OwnerProject team established performance requirements To date owner established requirements have been the most prevalent These requirements and the associated metrics can be based on owner experience due to benchmarking of their current portfolio and an understanding of occupancy and how their buildings are to be operated The agreement and subsequent monitoring requirements for demonstration of achievement are established by contract between the owner and design team The contract may include specific fee incentives or contingencies based on performance outcome

bull National model requirements Setting static building performance targets at a national scale is challenging At this time the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) provides the most comprehensive dataset characterizing the performance of the


OUTCOME BASED CODES FOCUSED ON ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

CURRENT CODES

MEET PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS

OUTCOME BASED CODES

MEET PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

2030 CHALLENGE

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT (EISA)

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE LEED

RESTORATIVE BUILDINGS

LAW BREAKING BUILDINGS

NET ZERO ENERGY CERTIFICATION

FIGURE 5 Outcome-based energy code compliance offers an alternative option to verify a buildingrsquos energy performance after it is occupied and operational Courtesy SERA Architects


U S building stock Unfortunately current CBECS data is from the 2003 survey and only allows for statistically valid targets in certain building types in certain climate zones A proposal for inclusion in the International Green Construction Code by NIBS NBI BOMA and others uses CBECS to set performance targets 9 An alternative modeling-based methodology to setting targets may also be developed Such an approach would produce an individualized target for each building

bull State or local performance requirements Establishing state or local requirements whether in code or through other policies can be much more focused and contextual than nationally established targets Jurisdictions with benchmarking and disclosure information can more readily parse data to set targets by building type and be more reflective of localized climate and use conditions as compared to CBECS

In addition to setting the initial targets that will influence design methods for adjusting targets during the performance period should the occupancy or use change will be necessary See additional discussion in the energy performance metrics section below

Performance PeriodTo date most outcome-based requirements have been focused on demonstration of results within a relatively short time period Public-private partnerships or design-build-operate-maintain contracts are the exception but have not yet been widely used At this early stage in the development and implementation of outcome-based approaches a single demonstration of achievement may be appropriate But in the long-term establishment and accomplishment of requirements should cover the entire building life cycle Linking requirements from design and construction to operations will be an important step in establishing this continuum Recent examples require one or more years of performance monitoring and feedback

Many Summit participants saw outcome-based requirements as a means to tackling energy use within existing buildings Performance criteria in policies that impact the entire building life-cycle should be developed Audit and retrofit policies in place in New York City may be a good starting point

Case StudiesThe introduction and implementation of new technologies or practices follows a common pattern of early adopters through to widespread utilization Moving an industry along this curve requires demonstration that the early adopters have been successful in implementation and achieved a verified level of benefit from taking such a step Case studies provide a potential methodology and a valuable demonstration of success to encourage others to implement outcome-based requirements The case studies must be sufficiently diverse by project type to allow design teams and owners to see their peers utilizing the identified practices

9 Since the Summit this provision was approved and will be an alternative compliance path in the 2015 IgCC

At this early stage in the development and implementation of outcome-based approaches a single demonstration of achievement may be appropriate But in the long-term establishment and accomplishment of requirements should cover the entire building life cycle


Existing projects that have effectively implemented outcome-based requirements are encouraged to develop case studies focused specifically on this element of the project This includes sharing of lessons learned and agreements and contracts utilized

Metering and FeedbackTo succeed in building performance outcomes strategies to directly engage operators and tenants in meaningful interaction with building performance features are needed As discussed there are a range of communication and information tools to improve the transition from design to operation There are also basic metering and feedback systems that should be designed into buildings to provide the actionable information needed by operators and tenants to better manage building performance Increasingly there are good examples of these strategies in the market Information about effective metering and feedback systems must to be collected and disseminated

Energy ModelingCurrently energy modeling is not part of standard design practice and if it is used it tends to be in isolation and not as a tool integrated into the overall process When modeling is used it is typically to ldquocheck a boxrdquo within a regulatory requirement or rating system This severely limits the scope of the modeling conducted and results in the model not being used to its full potential within the design process (nor integrated into operations) Based on the current uses of energy modeling owners and the building team are not seeing the full valuemdashthus diminishing the desire to invest in models that could support better design and operations and ultimately outcome-based performance

The use of energy modeling needs to evolve to more directly reflect building performance outcome Modeling tools need to more effectively incorporate information about anticipated building operation which will require better communication and information transfer from building owners to the design team and energy modelers Currently energy modeling predictions are used almost exclusively to compare different design alternatives under a fixed set of building operating assumptions This leads to misconceptions about predicted outcomes that do not reflect real and reasonable variations in building characteristics Performance predictions generated by energy modeling need to be understood as a predicted range of outcome based on the anticipated range of building use patterns occupant behavior weather variation control characteristics and other factors

Better feedback mechanisms are needed by design teams to understand how their past buildings are being used This information would allow designers to calibrate the wide range of modeling inputs that are not dependent on specific

FIGURE 6 The Ratio of Actual (measured) EUI to Design (modeled) EUI shows that actual building performance outcomes can vary significantly from design predictions (Design EUI axis) Projects below 10 on the y-axis are using less energy than predicted while projects above 10 on this axis are using more energy than predicted The difference is more pronounced in buildings predicted to be low energy users in part because highly variable occupant and operator impacts represent a much larger percentage of total energy use in these buildings Courtesy NBI


design decisions to lead to more accurate performance predictions Modeling guidance such as the COMNET modeling guidelines and procedures can help facilitate more consistency in building operational assumptions 10

Energy models generated in the design process should be carried forward into the building operational phase and updated based on actual building use and performance characteristics In this way the energy modeling process can be improved and the model can serve as additional information about whether the building is operating as anticipated Better use of energy modeling tools will be a critical element in sorting out performance responsibilities among design construction and operation team members

ContractsLiabilityThe achievement of performance outcomes relies on effective design construction and operations of buildings However in most ldquotraditionalrdquo contract and building processes these stages are dealt with independently and thus the potential efficiencies and synergies are lost Further as discussed in the operations breakout group the owner and OampM staff are left dealing with whatever decisions were made in the design and construction processmdashwith limited ongoing support from the AEC team and little input into

design and construction decisions In fact the project documentation may not even communicate to the operations staff what was intended by the design team

Setting the stage for widespread focus on outcomes requires examination of key factors that drive contracts and project processes The biggest factor is the ability to identify risk and then manage that risk Trust across parties is a key factor in the success of outcome-focused projects Establishing an environment conducive to shared risks and shared rewards is important Contractors can obtain bonding but the absence of this capability for designers results in a potential disconnect

The overall project delivery process and the allocation of total project funding

(both in time and by actor) will need to change Owners will need to recognize that they are investing in a project delivery process and not the individual components within that process A long-term contract between architects engineers contractors owners and operators with engagement or recognition of other important participants (specialty designers and contractors finance insurance etc ) may be required The potential nature and duration is an area where additional discussion is needed

10 httpwwwcomnetorg

The Most Sensible and Fair Means of Contractually Apportioning Risk

Nobody liked the litigation option

00100

200300

400500

600

Leave it up to litigation to work out standards over

time

Devise three-party agreements between

design team contractor and owner to

cooperatively share the risk amp rewards for actual

performance

Release the design team and contractor from

responsibility as soon as a commissioning

authority or other expert determines building amp

systems are capable of being operated below the energy cap Then

responsibility would be entirely on occupants amp

owner

FIGURE 7 A group of building industry thought leaders were asked to share their view of how to contractually apportion risk of non-performance Courtesy NIBS

Trust across parties is a key factor in the success of outcome-focused projects


Today there is a fundamental disconnect between actors with the necessary information and those responsible for procurement and design This results in a compounding of safety factors resulting in wide variations in the basis of design and a reluctance to provide reliable performance predictions Contracts should support the establishment of feedback loops to all industry participants

Incorporating as much detail into existing contracts regarding roles and responsibilities is an important step in the evolutionary process This includes the Basis of Design along with methods for monitoring its realization Such monitoring coupled with effective commissioning can help in apportioning risk appropriately A roles and responsibilities matrix should be developed and incorporated into contracts The Public Sector Comparator implemented in British Columbia Canada can be a model Establishing a soft landing concept where the building is operated for the first year with a specific focus on how that operation meets the design intent is important and must involve the design team

Often smaller participants in the design process (sub-discipline designers and specialty subcontractors) bear risk through meeting their contract obligations but are not party to the rewards overall Agreements that recognize all actors in the design and construction process and appropriately identify risk and rewards are requiredmdashrisk should be shared rather than shifted

Several models already exist but case studies models and education are necessary to support their widespread utilization Models are identified below

Initial shifts to the use of outcome-focused contracts will likely be among owner-occupied buildings (they have the greatest control over occupants typically have long time horizons and understand the risks of climate change and stranded investments) Some owner-occupiers are already implementing such contracts (e g GSA Federal Center South Washington State Olympia Office Building University of Washington RampD buildings) Incentives may be necessary in the short term to shift the perspective of non-owner-occupiers Ideally a system focused on total cost of ownership (TCO) guarantees would be possible once the issues identified during the Summit are resolved

Table 1 Contract Models

Energy Saving AgreementA Two (owner + provider) or Three (owner + provider + finance) party agreement based on meter readings with a five to 15 year timeframe

Energy Saving Purchase Agreement An agreement focused on the aggregation of conservation measures

Public Private Partnership (PPPP3) Design Build Operate MaintainDesign Build Operate Finance

A life-cycle focused contract where design construction and operations responsibility lie in a single entity thus supporting optimization across all three stages

Performance Requirements in ContractsContracts where certain performance requirements are established and a portion of the design fee is withheld until achievement of that requirement is demonstrated


Industry and Market Engagement

Moving toward a perception of building performance based on actual energy performance outcome will require a transition in the marketplace to recognize the value of actual energy performance as a basis for comparing buildings This transition will require the development of key market messaging a recognition of the motivations of key market players and the engagement of key interest groups

Messaging to the market which will support a focus on building performance outcomes includes

bull Public recognition (Great Building)

bull The ability to compare building performance data to that of peer buildings

bull A recognition that building performance is not static and can evolve into better (or worse) performance without on-going intervention and management

bull Recognition that building energy use is tied to environmental impacts beyond the building itself

bull An alignment of building performance improvements with corporate identify and commitment

bull The role of building performance in pride of ownership and occupancy

bull Good information about the business case for building performance both in terms of energy costs and other performance advantages including occupanttenant satisfaction

bull A recognition that asset value is tied to building performance characteristics

There are a wide number of key interest groups that could participate in a transition to widespread recognition of building performance outcome These groups are identified in Table 2 Other publicity opportunities such as op-ed pieces could also be used to increase perception of this issue

Moving toward a perception of building performance based on actual energy performance outcome will require a transition in the marketplace to recognize the value of actual energy performance as a basis for comparing buildings


Behavioral ChangeAs identified above the achievement of performance outcomes will depend on the behavior of multiple actors Understanding and influencing this behavior to result in decisions supportive of desired outcomes will be an important step in achieving widespread adoption of outcome-based requirementsmdashoutcomes will not be effective without understanding and influencing occupant behavior

Achievement of performance outcomes requires the engagement of operators tenants employers and users and owners While these represent the top priorities designers also must be engaged to support understanding in future projects Once these participants are engaged the market and elected officials will likely follow

Data on tenant behavior is limitedmdashparticularly with respect to energy efficiency Identifying the messages that resonate with this audience understanding their motivations and examples of what has worked are needed Development of a ldquoreference standardrdquo for tenant engagement is required Addressing the balance between one-time interventions and continuous interactions is necessary

Stakeholder Groups Stakeholder Organizations

bull Tenantsbull Business Improvement Districtsbull Financersbull Government Agenciesbull Insurancebull Corporate Real Estate Decision

Makersbull Developersbull Corporate Boardsbull Ownersbull Journalistsbull NGOrsquosAdvocatesbull Facility Managementbull Product ManagersDevelopersbull Real EstateLeasingbull Strategic Business Consultantsbull Risk Officersbull Manufacturersbull CFOsbull Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)bull Property Managersbull General Public

bull National Institute of Building Sciences Council on Finance Insurance and Real Estate (CFIRE)

bull American Institute of Architects (AIA)bull National Association of Realtorsbull Associated of General Contractors of

America (AGC)bull National Association of Homebuilders

(NAHB)bull Institute for Market Transformation (IMT)bull Building Owners and Managers

Association (BOMA)bull World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD)bull National Association of Regional Utility

Commissioners (NARUC)bull National Association of Industrial and

Office Properties (NAIOP)bull CoreNet Globalbull National Association of State Energy

Offices (NASEO)bull Urban Land Institute(ULI)Green Print bull Green Building Finance Consortium (GBFCbull ASHRAEbull U S Green Building Councilbull International Facility Management

Association (IFMA)bull American Society of Plumbing Engineers

(ASPE)

bull International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)

bull APPAbull American Council of Engineering

Companies (ACEC)bull Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC)bull American Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy (ACEEE)bull National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA)bull International Union of Operating Engineers

(IUOE)bull Green Building Initiative (GBI)bull National Association of College and

University Business Officers (NACUBO)bull U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)bull U S General Services Administration (GSA)bull National Trust for Historic Preservation

(NTHP)bull Global Buildings Performance Network

(GBPN)bull Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)bull National Association of Power Engineers

(NAPE)bull Association for the Advancement of

Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)bull Urban Sustainability Directors Network

(USDN)

Table 2 Stakeholder Lists


Behavior change can be expressed using the following equations

Motivations for change to support outcomes can be based on many of the following

bull Potential for fines

bull Cost of energy

bull Social cost of carbon

bull Optimizing funding for organizational mission

bull Maintaining leadership in an industry

bull Avoiding perception of being below average

Identifying potential sources of incentives is important and can eventually be aligned to offset the levels of risk undertaken by participants in outcome-based performance processes Focus on the ultimate beneficiary of outcome-based performance (owners) can help support incentivizing key audiences (employees designers operators) These incentives must be easy to implement and minimally invasive thus allowing their widespread utilizations

Different mechanisms for sharing motivations and advancing change can be implemented including competitions and peer pressure that incorporate dashboards (at the appropriate level of complexity for the audience) newsletters events and friendly peer pressure Green teams or champions with equal participation by operators tenants and employees can help drive change

Education to support change is necessary Specific topics include comfort (putting on a sweater versus utilizing a space heater) and the increasing impact of tenant-controlled loads on energy use Cooperative Extension may be a model for driving change based on its ability to identify an area needing change providing the tools necessary and then motivating stakeholders to make the change

Green leases are an opportunity to align owner tenant and performance goals and encourage greater tenant involvement in the buildingrsquos performance results Implementing green leases may be difficult in the near term as some owners may foresee it limiting the pool of potential tenants

Regulation + Technology + Incentives + Education + Pricing = Change

A Larger Objective or Something

Wrong

The Ability to Change the

Wrong or meet the Objective

A Benefit or the Threat of Loss

Behavior Change

+ + =


Efforts underway in other sectors including health can help shed light on effective methods Data alone usually does not motivate but storytelling can Effective messages coupled with delivery mechanisms will be important Messages should be simple and understood by multiple audiences

This engagement and behavior change must occur while other transitions in the work environment are underway New ways of working are impacting the size and layout of workspaces New metrics for energy usemdashEUI per person or per widgetmdashmay be warranted

Ultimately social scientists should be engaged in discussions and research to support this transition in the buildings industry

Energy Performance MetricsThe most commonly used energy metric at the building level is energy use intensity (EUI) EUI is measured in kBtusfyr or less commonly in kWhsfyr This metric represents a combination of all fuel types used by a building in a year normalized to building size (in square feet of floor area)

Though easily understood there are a number of limitations to EUI that lead to questions about whether this is the most appropriate metric for building performance EUI is affected by building use type climate hours of use and other factors that are normal variables in buildings For example a building located in more extreme climates will naturally have a higher EUI than a comparable building in a milder climate (all other things being equal) These differences do not reflect any inherent building performance issues so in this case the comparison of EUI does not necessarily lead to conclusions about building performance between different buildings

Note however that EUI is a measured performance number that can be used to track individual building performance over time EUI can also be compared to other buildings if the anticipated performance variables are normalized to reflect different building characteristics Normalization accounts for anticipated use patterns to develop expectations of building performance based on these characteristics In this way an EUI can be used as a target or benchmark for performance Typical issues that should be normalized to account for different energy performance expectations include

bull Climate zonebull Facility use(s)bull Actual weather historybull Hours of operationbull Occupancy levelsbull Special features (secondary uses data centers processing)

The key to successfully using EUI as a benchmark is having good data on the energy performance of similar buildings Jurisdictions that collect and evaluate disclosure data are in a strong position to set EUI targets and compare local building stock performance to these benchmarks

Measuring Performance

Jurisdictions that collect and evaluate disclosure data are in a strong position to set EUI targets and compare local building stock performance to these benchmarks


CBECS and Energy Star both use EUI data to report building performance Energy Star normalizes for climate use type and occupant density to generate performance expectations

The simplicity of EUI leads to its widespread use in the market

An alternative metric to EUI is the Zero Energy Performance Index or zEPI This metric sets a baseline of CBECS 2001 data the same baseline used by the 2030 Challenge as a basis for building performance policy goals The baseline is normalized to a value of 100 while zero net annual energy performance is set at a value of 0 The zEPI score places building performance on this 100 to 0 scale to represent progress toward zero net energy (ZNE) The lower the score

the better the building is performing This metric is built into the IgCC and has been adopted elsewhere as well

Energy Star uses a somewhat different metric EUI is normalized based on occupancy climate and use type then this value is plotted against the overall building stock as a percentile A score of 100 the highest achievable represents a building performing in the top 1 percentile of the building stock as represented by CBECS 2001

Note that the energy metric used by LEED and others representing predicted performance percentage beyond code baseline does not represent an actual performance outcome and is therefore not relevant to this discussion

Some alternative energy metrics have been proposed but they have not gained wide traction These include energy useoccupant energy use per occupied hour and other metrics that account for building use patterns These metrics may represent valid considerations of building performance but occupancy and use variables are extremely difficult to track in real time limiting the applicability of these metrics

Non-Energy MetricsAlthough there is a focus on energy performance in discussing building performance outcomes there are also a number of non-energy metrics that can be used to describe or consider building performance These metrics include lsquohuman variablesrsquo such as comfort health and satisfaction larger economic metrics such as economic efficiency productivity and resource optimization and building functionality and resiliency in the face of evolving market environmental and functional conditions

Commercial policy adopted

Public buildings benchmarked

Single-family transparency adopted

Commercial amp multifamily policy adopted

WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA

copy Copyright 2014 Institute for Market Transformation Updated 42015

FIGURE 8 Cities and states are putting in place disclosure ordinances that require com-mercial buildings to report energy use This data will help determine whether buildings are performing as designed Courtesy IMT

Impacts of building characteristics on human performance have been well documented but difficult to quantify Buildings can impact occupant health through poor ventilation and the presence of toxins while comfort and perceived space quality can impact absenteeism and even daily work effectiveness


Impacts of building characteristics on human performance have been well documented but difficult to quantify Buildings can impact occupant health through poor ventilation and the presence of toxins while comfort and perceived space quality can impact absenteeism and even daily work effectiveness Taken together the range of building impacts on human occupants are generally categorized as impacts on occupant productivity Although these characteristics are difficult to measure there is a clear perception of increased occupant productivity in healthy pleasant and well-designed and well-operated buildings and a converse recognition of poor productivity in unpleasant building spaces Factors that can affect occupant productivity include

bull Lighting levels and light qualitybull Access to daylight and viewsbull Presence of unhealthy compounds in building materialsbull Poor ventilationbull Lack of control of indoor temperatures especially when HVAC

systems are poorly controlled

bull Social environment fostered or limited by building design and shared spaces

While the metrics to evaluate these characteristics are qualitative and somewhat subjective the importance of these factors becomes apparent when we recognize that the cost to an organization of employee salaries and benefits is several orders of magnitude larger than the physical operating cost of the building in which employees are housed Small gains on occupant productivity can have large impacts on an organizationrsquos bottom line so interest in non-energy metrics for building performance remains high

Building energy performance is also part of a larger economic picture beyond the building itself Energy

productivity is a key economic metric in evaluating the overall economy and the environmental and political impacts of energy use and electricity generation are far reaching One manifestation of the larger impacts of building energy use is the frequent discussion of site vs source energy for buildings Site energy considers the metered energy use of the building and relates directly to the utility bills paid by the building owner The source energy metric recognizes that the electricity distribution grid itself includes inefficiencies beyond measured building energy use and that different fuel sources have widely different impacts on carbon generation and therefore climate change This is a clear manifestation of how broader policy and societal goals and concerns can tie directly to the evaluation of building performance

More recently the metric of resiliency has been applied to the building stock and to individual buildings Resiliency refers to the ability of a building or

1063 Block Replacement | Olympia WAImage ZGF


community to withstand disruptions to the power grid and other systems caused by extreme weather events or other conditions Recent weather-related disasters have forced the recognition that power grid failures can have varying impacts on building usability depending on a series of building characteristics Building features and operational characteristics can affect their usability during a grid failure or other event Some efforts have been undertaken to adopt metrics which recognize resiliency characteristics of buildings and communities

All of these different metrics can be cross-referenced with building energy performance to develop a more complete picture of building performance outcome

Performance Metrics for Codes and PolicyOne topic of discussion at the Summit was what building performance metrics can be used as a basis for codes and policy More specifically How will performance (i e outcomes) be evaluated What will be the metric(s) and how will they be set How do we accommodate the diverse types of buildings and leverage existing tools

As a starting point a specific example was chosen to facilitate an exercise about what metrics would be appropriate The choice of an example was a standard K-12 school A list of the wide range of options for metrics follows Notably it includes a wide range of metrics from simple EUI-type metrics through productivity and health indicators

The wide range of identified metrics led to a discussion of the objectives for choosing a metric The most significant objectives were reducing CO2 emissions avoiding costs of additional electrical generation achieving ldquogreatrdquo buildings delivering the best value proposition to building owners and

bull Energy Star bull Equipment power densitybull Student performance and

productivity bull Predicted percent of occupant

satisfactionbull Design standards bull Lighting power densitybull Established code model bull Demand response capacitybull Safety security resilience refugebull Site emissions noxsoxcdbull European Energy certificateASHRAE

Building EQ bull Resiliency days out of operationsbull EU (total Energy Use) bull Energy production index (EPI)bull EUI (e g kBTuSFYR)

bull Peak demandbull EUIoccupancy (e g kBTuStudent

Hour) bull First CostOampM Cost Life-Cycle Costbull Occupant schedule bull Carbon mitigationbull Effective envelope performancebull CO2 emissions Studentbull Energy for heatingcoolingend

uses bull Water use intensity GalSFStudentbull Daylight autonomybull Certificationsbull Air leakage rate bull Percent better than codebull IAQ or IEQ (including daylightviewsIAQ)bull Building asset scores (e g DOE

California Australia)


designing a metric that permits easy comparisons between buildings

With the possible objectives identified an effort was made to identify what metrics would be useful to particular user groups For the owners and end users the most useful metrics could be a fixed index like zEPI EU EUIs energy bills equipment power density and Energy Star For the design community the metrics identified included EU EUI Energy Star daylight autonomy air leakage rate and CO2 emissions

The final exercise was to brainstorm ideas that would apply to the ldquoidealrdquo performance approach to building energy use The approach would start with energy use data of building types to generate specific performance targets or targets could be generated from assumptions and details in a predictive model These assumptions and targets could be updated throughout the project After occupancy the targets should be calibrated with energy useutility data In this scenario the AampE team should be engaged in this phase for at least one to two years post occupancy

The group discussed what would be needed to achieve this ldquoidealrdquo approach Owners and developers would need to require that kind of ongoing engagement from AEC firms the AEC teams would need to be amenable and able to be involved at this level the utility companies would need to make the data available or be required by disclosure laws and the building operations teams would need to be trained and informed to make useful changes based on the results of the metric reports once the buildings are in operation

Scope and Structure of Codes and PolicySeveral sessions at the Summit were oriented around the structure implementation and action items for moving towards codes and policies that accommodate or encourage the outcomes approach It was recognized that policies that required building performance such as zero net energy implicitly assume that the measured energy use of a ZNE building is matched by its energy output This linkage between ZNE and an actual energy performance outcome was one way to garner support for outcome-based codes This is also true of policies like Architecture 2030

One aspect that must be explicitly addressed is how much outcome policies relate to new construction versus existing buildings Any new building becomes an rsquoexisting buildingrsquo after it is occupied but newly constructed buildings may have the advantage of being designed to meet an outcome code For older existing buildings designed and built to older codes enforceable outcome codes based on actual energy performance may be most applicable to only the worst-performing buildings in a private or public portfolio or may be used to identify buildings for audits or retro-commissioning in order to bring them above a minimum performance threshold

A large looming question and potential recommendation from the groups was how and to what extent the lsquooutcome-based codersquo regime should dominate the pre-occupancy stage and to what extent could another lsquonon-codesrsquo policy

Policy Agenda

A large looming question and potential recommendation from the groups was how and to what extent the lsquooutcome-based codersquo regime should dominate the pre-occupancy stage and to what extent could another lsquonon-codesrsquo policy dominate the post-occupancy phase of a building


dominate the post-occupancy phase of a building Can the EUI target be set in the former stage under construction codes but meeting them be taken over by another policy or department And what types of EUI normalizations should be available when the compliance measurement is made

Alternatively this may mean that building departments enforcing energy codes need to be given new types of authority along the lines of the Fire Code which is enforced through periodic inspections Some participants thought energy was equally a lsquolifesafetyrsquo issue and this new authority was justified On the other hand the link to outcomes might only be done by ldquocarrotsrdquo such as utility incentives Other jurisdictional incentives such as increased floor area ration (FAR) or expedited permitting could also be used as an incentive for projects to commit to an outcome-based compliance path

Practical Next Steps for Codes1 Research Studies Guides and Papers The following list of

potential study areas was identified

a Study how building data (utility or benchmarking) can support setting targets for outcome-based policy

b Research what metering is necessary and how it can support outcome-based policies

c Develop a work plan to accomplish the widespread implementation of outcome-based policies

d Develop a visual timeline with major milestones and upcoming development in this arena

e Develop a compendium of case studies of all implemented outcome-based and similar policies (e g New York City) and survey possible enforcement mechanisms

f Develop material to enable press and trade coverage of this issue

g Research simplified approaches to developing EUI targets

h Develop guides to modeling practices and calibration methods to use modeling in post-occupancy phase

i Develop a guide of best practices for state and local governments to achieve outcomes

2 Other immediate next steps to move forward

a Pilot in key cities (e g Vancouver BC)

b Write case studies of existing activities (e g Seattle)

c Review and develop proposals for expanding the ldquoTitle Purpose and Scoperdquo of existing energy codes and standards

d Use stakeholder groups to develop consensus of key goals (e g Architecture 2030)

e Recruit other jurisdictions to follow GSA model for their municipal projects

Important for the long-term viability of outcome-based processes are improvements in building performance data and modeling


Following a day and a half of intense discussion and the identification of numerous needs to advance a building industry and policy framework focused on outcomes participants came together to identify a pathway forward The participants clearly recognized that the transition would not be quick but immediate action is required to continue advancing to the goal

The first steps identified by the group focused on a one- to two-year continuum of activities that help make the case and establish the fundamental needs in moving forward These first steps would collectively form a platform of tools and resources aimed at policy makers and the industry Resident within this platform will be case studies identifying and evaluating projects and programs focused on outcomes advocacy tools to explain the benefits of these approaches and best practices for adoption and a ldquohow tordquo guide written in plain language that lays out the business and risk case for implementation Cost studies will also be important to help make the business case

Important for the long-term viability of outcome-based processes are improvements in building performance data and modeling NBI NIBS ASHRAE BOMA AIA IFMA and others should develop a method for gathering and storing building performance-level data that supports establishment of meaningful performance targets This effort accompanied by advancements in energy modeling will help drive better understanding of the gap between predicted and actual performance Guides on ldquoHow to Model for Outcomesrdquo and ldquoDeveloping an Outcome-Based Performance Scope of Workrdquo are required The modeling guide should include acceptance criteria for software appropriate for use in outcome-based processes

Pilot projects will be valuable in testing the concept components and building a set of case studies Summit participants should start incorporating targets in their projects today Additional pilots should be conducted within government projects The pending EPA regulations on carbon emissions from power plants can provide a platform for implementationmdasha model framework for inclusion in state plans should be developed

Other stakeholders must be engaged The breakout session on Outreach identified an important list to start from (see Table 2)

The following table identifies the range of issues discussed in the Summit and highlights recommendations identified for follow-up to move forward with progress toward building performance outcomes

Conclusions


bull BenchmarkingReporting

bull Begin setting targets today (even if voluntary and not very stringent)

bull Align baseline reach and incentive policies to support scalable solutions

bull Develop sample ordinances

bull Roadmap for widespread benchmarking (beyond city level)

bull Provide model for incorporation into 111(d) requirements

bull Develop community-level targets in addition to individual buildings

bull Establish link between codes which cover design and construction and policies focused on operations

bull Establish bonding capabilities for AampEs

bull Incorporate code requirements to help mitigate owner risk

bull Disclosure of AEC OampM teams along with performance link with licensure

bull Examine potential utility incentive strategies

bull Establish basis for local targets (benchmarking reporting metering)

bull Develop 5-6 year pathway to mandatory with increasing stringency

bull Identify consequences for non-compliance

bull Require submission of EUI target at permitting with occupancy

bull White paperroadmap for policymakers

bull Code departmentgovernment case studies

bull Shrink number of loads not covered in code

Policy

bull Develop low cost reliable energy models

bull Behavior change and occupant engagement

bull Fully integrated tools to support data collectionfeedbackanalysis

bull Understand gap between predicted and actual

bull Establish standards for reporting

bull Develop real time data reporting CBECS for the 21st century

bull Owner value of outcomes including modeling

bull Link between OampM training and building performancevalue

bull Database of factors impacting actual performance

bull Process for simplified EUI targeting

bull Research on effective motivators (zoning taxes permits etc )

bull Identify potential barriers in procurementacquisition

bull Identify minimum requirements for models and checkpoints with owners on data

bull Identify models from other industries (method engineering enterprise architecture)

Research

Table 3 Breakout Recommendations

bull Advance ldquocomfort literacyrdquo

bull Policymakers to understand what is possible

bull Integrate performance in brokerage education

bull Learn the language of systems

bull Develop professional practice guideline for outcomes

bull Develop and disseminate case studies from effective projects

bull Determining reasonable performance levels

bull Owners on total cost of ownership

bull AEC needs better financial literacy to make the business case

bull Advance understanding of role of commissioning

bull Develop professional practice guideline for modeling

Education


bull Professionalization of OampM

bull Advanced data tools in real time

bull Move beyond first cost focus

bull Eliminate ldquopaybackrdquo concept in favor of investment

bull Advance code departments as public policy administrators

bull Sign-on statement

bull Tie performance to real estate value incorporate into appraisals

bull Engage others in the conversationeffort

bull Overcome belief by AampEs that they cannot lead deliver for owners

bull Materialsprocesses must address different ownersaudience

bull Develop case studies particularly for small buildings

bull Shift to energy productivitymax use case

bull Identify non-energy outcomes and benefits

bull Prevent variations in EUI within code compliant buildings

bull Op-eds on transition to outcome focus

bull Volunteer firmsowners to pilot

bull Identify outreach channelstarget audience

bull Develop business planfunding prospectus to drive forward

bull Flip code from prescriptive informs performance to performance with prescriptive compliance pathway

Other

Process

bull Complete teams on day 1

bull Comfortenergy goals on day 1

bull Advance integrated design with integrated risk amp reward

bull Support establishment of feedback loops

bull Eliminate design-bid-build process as anti-collaborative

bull Embed measurement and verification requirements in contracts

bull Identify and share existing contract methods

bull Deliverycontract model wizard delivery model comparator

bull Develop workflow modelsresponsibility matrixdecision flow charts

bull Refocus energy modeling to designdecision tool rather than complianceverification

bull Include outcomes in competitions and awards

bull Define roles and value of AEC contributions

bull Identifydevelop business models in support of life-cycle engagement

bull Establish post occupancy evaluation as standard practice

bull Standardization of ldquoAs Builtrdquo models

bull Develop ldquocapability maturity matrixrdquo

bull Greater development of OPRBOD with metrics and incorporate into contract

bull Deliver comfortoccupant experience as a service

bull Innovations in leasing

bull Shifting OampM away from crisis management

bull New delivery processes to reflect ongoing engagement

bull Method for engagement of smaller entities in risk amp reward

bull Incorporate roles and responsibilities matrix into contracts

bull Examine Public Sector Comparator


AppendicesAppendix I - Summit AgendaDay One

Group One Group discussion of Performance Outcomes and Summit goals

Breakout One Disciplines How are projects delivered currently and what will this process look like in a performance outcome scenario (timing roles responsibilities etc )

A Codes and Policy

B ArchitectsEngineers

C OwnerDeveloper

D OperatorFacility Managers

Breakout Two Issues and Solutions Discussion of specific tools and approaches needed to support performance outcome

A Performance metrics for codes and policy

B Contract structure and liability

C Tenant engagement and leasing strategies

D DesignDelivery Process

Breakout Three Session Three-Trajectory toward Performance Outcome

A Codes and Policy

B Engagement Strategies

C Non-Energy Metrics

Day Two

Breakout Four Breakout Session Four

A Codes and Policy Agenda

B Tools and Solutions

C Research and Education Agenda

Group Two Report out and Group Discussion focused on next steps industry allies collaboration opportunities and needs

Denis Hayes President Bullitt Foundation

Jonathan Heller Principal Engineer Ecotope

Chris Hellstern Associate Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects

Randall Higa Codes and Standards Program Mgr Southern California Edison

Chris Higgins Green Building Planner City of Vancouver BC

Don Horn Deputy Director US General Services Administration

Bob Horner Director of Public Policy Illuminating Engineering Society

John Jennings Senior Product Manager Emerging Technology and Market Strategy Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Duane Jonlin Energy Code and Energy Conservation Advisor City of Seattle

Paul Karrer Manager Building Codes Policy American Institute of Architects

Michael Lane Supervisor Energy Management Engineer Puget Sound Energy

Toby Lau Codes amp Standards Principal BC Hydro

Andrew Lee Senior Associate Paladino amp Co

Joe Manganelli DesignerResearcher amp Postdoctoral Fellow Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research amp USGBC SC Chapter

John Martin Public Policy Consultant International Association of Lighting Designers

Vincent Martinez Director of Research amp Operations Architecture 2030

Greg McCall Energy Policy Specialist City of Vancouver BC

Christopher Meek Research Associate Professor University of Washington Integrated Design Lab

Appendix II - AttendeesChristopher Baker Principal The Weidt Group

Ken Baker Senior Manager Codes amp Standards Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Clark Brockman Principal SERA

Catherine Calvert Managing Director VIA Architecture

Cathy Chappell VP Energy Efficiency Consulting Services TRC Solutions

Ric Cochrane Associate Director Preservation Green Lab

Ryan Colker Director Consultative CouncilPresidential Advisor National Institute of Building Sciences

David Collins Architect The Preview Group Inc

John Coster Green Business Officer Skanska USA Building

Ralph DiNola CEO New Buildings Institute

Jim Edelson Director of Codes and Policy New Buildings Institute

Perry England VP of Building Performance MacDonald-Miller Facility Solutions

Liz Fischer Executive Director Building Commissioning Association

Denise Fong Principal Practice Leader Candela

Michael Fowler Program Manager Residential New Construction Puget Sound Energy

Michael Frank Director of Engineering McKinstry

Mark Frankel Technical Director New Buildings Institute

Henry Green President National Institute of Building Sciences

Maureen Guttman President Building Codes Assessment Project

Zachary Hart Director Policy American Institute of Architects

Brandon Morgan Development Manager Vulcan Real Estate

Chuck Murray Senior Energy Policy Specialist Washington State Dept of Commerce

Brendan Owens VP LEED US Green Building Council

Tom Owens Tom Owens Consulting

Stan Price Executive Director Northwest Energy Efficiency Council

Sonia Punjabi EERE Fellow US Department of Energy

Peter Rake Chief Operating Officer Switch Automation

Dave Ramslie Principal Integral Group

Peter Raynham Senior Lecturer Bartlett School of Graduate Studies University College London

Kevin Rose Building Energy Technical Associate Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

Michael Rosenberg Senior Research Scientist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Vikram Sami Associate Partner Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects

James Saywell Senior Associate Built EcologyWSP

Kraig Stevenson Sr Regional Manager Government Relations International Code Council

Alicia Daniels Uhlig Principal Director of Sustainability GGLO

Clayton Ulrich Senior VP Engineering Services Hines

Jon Wiener Principal SRG Partnership

Jerry Yudelson President Green Building Initiative


1601 Broadway Vancouver WA 98663

350-567-0950 | newbuildings org

New Buildings Institute (NBI) is a nonprofit organization working to improve the energy performance of commercial buildings We work collaboratively with commercial building market players mdash governments utilities energy efficiency advocates and building professionals mdash to remove barriers to energy efficiency including promoting advanced design practices improved technologies public policies and programs that improve energy efficiency

1090 Vermont Avenue NW Suite 700 Washington DC 20005

202-289-7800 | nibs org

The National Institute of Building Sciences is a non-profit non-governmental organization that successfully brings together representatives of government the professions industry labor and consumer interests and regulatory agencies to focus on the identification and resolution of problems and potential problems that hamper the construction of safe affordable structures for housing commerce and industry throughout the United States Authorized by the U S Congress the Institute provides an authoritative source and a unique opportunity for free and candid discussion among private and public sectors within the built environment The Institutersquos mission to serve the public interest is accomplished by supporting advances in building sciences and technologies for the purpose of improving the performance of our nationrsquos buildings while reducing waste and conserving energy and resources

Getting to Outcome-Based Building Performancei

Introduction 1

Summary of the Summit 1

Policy Goals for the Building Sector 3

Role of Energy Codes 4

Role of Benchmarking and Disclosure 5

Dividing Responsibility for Building Energy Performance 6

Design Team 6

OwnersDevelopers 10

Building Operators 10

Building Occupants 12

Tools and Strategies 13

Benchmarking and Disclosure 14

Codes 14

Performance Metrics 14

Performance Period 15

Case Studies 15

Metering and Feedback 16

Energy Modeling 16

ContractsLiability 17

Industry and Market Engagement 19

Behavioral Change 20

Measuring Performance 22

Energy Performance Metrics 22

Non-Energy Metrics 23

Performance Metrics for Codes and Policy 25

Policy Agenda 26

Scope and Structure of Codes and Policy 26

Practical Next Steps for Codes 27

Conclusions 28

Appendices 31

Appendix I - Summit Agenda 31

Appendix II - Attendees 32

Table of Contents








































0

20

40

60

80

1001975

1989 1999 2004 2007 2010 2015-20

Reach Code

Program

Program

Program

Program

ProgramProgram

Program

Actual Zero

ZNE


CodeCode

Code

Code

Code

Code





























00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000




457 457

943

800

686













NBI copy 2014


Design Team

Construction Team









































































CURRENT CODES


OUTCOME BASED CODES


2030 CHALLENGE































10 httpwwwcomnetorg



00100

200300

400500

600


time




performance






owner














































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org









































0

20

40

60

80

1001975

1989 1999 2004 2007 2010 2015-20

Reach Code

Program

Program

Program

Program

ProgramProgram

Program

Actual Zero

ZNE


CodeCode

Code

Code

Code

Code





























00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000




457 457

943

800

686













NBI copy 2014


Design Team

Construction Team









































































CURRENT CODES


OUTCOME BASED CODES


2030 CHALLENGE































10 httpwwwcomnetorg



00100

200300

400500

600


time




performance






owner














































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org






























00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000




457 457

943

800

686













NBI copy 2014


Design Team

Construction Team









































































CURRENT CODES


OUTCOME BASED CODES


2030 CHALLENGE































10 httpwwwcomnetorg



00100

200300

400500

600


time




performance






owner














































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org












NBI copy 2014


Design Team

Construction Team









































































CURRENT CODES


OUTCOME BASED CODES


2030 CHALLENGE































10 httpwwwcomnetorg



00100

200300

400500

600


time




performance






owner














































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org








































































CURRENT CODES


OUTCOME BASED CODES


2030 CHALLENGE































10 httpwwwcomnetorg



00100

200300

400500

600


time




performance






owner














































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org


























10 httpwwwcomnetorg



00100

200300

400500

600


time




performance






owner














































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org













































(ASPE)













(USDN)






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org






bull Cost of energy











Wrong




Behavior Change

+ + =

























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org


























WA

Seattle

SanFrancisco

Santa Fe

Austin

Denver

Minneapolis

Chicago

Arlington VA

Washington DC

Montgomery Co MD

Philadelphia

New York City

BostonCambridge

CA

SD

KS

AK

HI

MN

MI

OH

NY

CT

ME

AL

Portland

Atlanta

Berkeley CA




































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org


































Policy Agenda






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org






























Conclusions





















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org






















Policy















Research













Education





















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org






















Other

Process





























A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org






A Codes and Policy


C OwnerDeveloper








A Codes and Policy



Day Two



































































202-289-7800 | nibs org































































202-289-7800 | nibs org


report from a seattle summit on performance...

Documents