Month: May, 2016

26 May

Why Did I Get an LL84 Benchmarking Violation?!

Conor Laver benchmarking, LL84 0 Comments


Energy benchmarking and disclosure laws are getting real.  To date, NYC’s Local Law 84 (LL84), like most benchmarking laws, has required buildings to submit data on their annual energy usage without checking to see if the data was complete or sensible. The bar was set low to ease building owners into this reporting requirement. But now that the law has been around for a few years, the City is shifting from requiring mere participation to requiring real, useful data.  This year, LL84 benchmarking submissions are being held to a higher data quality standard than in previous years and violations are being issued to those who do not meet that standard.  And we can only assume that other cities with energy benchmarking and disclosure laws will follow suit.  Why is this happening, and why is it happening now?

What We’ve Seen

Since NYC’s benchmarking law was first introduced, there has been a proliferation of low-cost operators who promise to just “make the LL84 problem go away”, by submitting the bare minimum necessary to avoid a fine. I won’t name any names but we have seen some shocking examples of negligence from these operators, who submit totally false data to the City. When you see a submission that claims a building has only used 1000 gallons of oil this year for all of it’s energy, and no electricity at all, it’s obvious that something is up. We see cases like this all the time, and we expect to see more as the violations go out and we’re hired to correct the submissions. While these operators are temporarily assuaging a pain point for building owners, the result of their service is detrimental not only to their clients, but also the City.

Why This Matters

Let’s not forget that LL84 was born of a genuine need to gather energy data which would inform the City’s plans for improvement. Given the volume of low-quality submissions, a large portion of the submitted data is useless, making it all the more difficult to identify the greatest areas of need.

This data is crucial to building a better, more sustainable city. Retrofitting Affordability, co-authored by The Building Energy Exchange and Bright Power, is a great example of what can be accomplished with accurate data. Through data analysis, we were able to identify which buildings and which energy efficiency retrofit measures have the greatest potential for carbon reduction, an important step in executing the City’s climate action plan, One City: Built to Last. Through this plan, the City is committed to improving the building stock. Without accurate data, everyone is working blind.

This data is also incredibly valuable to real estate owners, for much the same reason. Accurate data is the cornerstone of any energy management strategy, from planning to execution and verification.  There’s a common saying about analyzing bad data: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

What To Do If You Received a Violation

The LL84 benchmarking violations will now result from either failure to submit data or data quality errors such as:

  1. Missing or zero in the ‘Property Floor Area ‘field (square feet);
  2. Missing or zero in the ‘Number of Buildings’ field;
  3. Missing or zero in the ‘Site EUI (kBTU/sq. ft.)’ field (Site Energy Use Intensity);
  4.  Missing or zero in the ‘Source EUI (kBTU/sq. ft.)’ field (Source Energy Use Intensity);
  5. Data in the ‘Metered Areas (Energy)’ field is missing or does not account for the total energy consumption
  6.  Missing or incorrectly formatted BBL number

If you’ve received a benchmarking violation, in NYC or elsewhere, and are wondering what do next, don’t be angry at the City; this data is crucial to making your building better and the City better. Instead come talk to us, about not only getting benchmarking done right, but also turning it from an annoying annual expense, into a valuable insight. You will pay less, the city will burn less fuel and the only people losing out will be the paper-pushing middlemen, who enjoyed getting rich without providing value.


24 May

Success with Passive House: An Interview with Ryan Cassidy

Leyna O'Neill enterprisegreencommunities, insulation, passive house 0 Comments

Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council (RBSCC) is leading the way for new construction in the affordable housing market with their dedication to high efficiency building practices, and more specifically, the Passive House Standard to which their properties,  Knickerbocker Commons and Mennonite United Revival Apartments, were built. After noticing these properties’ incredible performance in EnergyScoreCards, Bright Power sat down with RBSCC Director of Property & Construction Management, Ryan Cassidy, to discuss his experiences with Passive House.

Not familiar with Passive House? Check out our breakdown “What is Passive House and Why You Should Care”.

The following has been lightly edited for clarity.

LO: At what point did Passive House land on RBSCC’s radar?
RC: In about 2004 we started working with NYSERDA’s Multifamily Performance Program (MPP) and we saw that the incentives available for high efficiency buildings were substantial, and it was cutting edge at the time. A few years later we noticed that the available grant money was decreasing but there was an uptick in consultants who could administer the MPP program so we started looking for ways to construct buildings that were really geared toward energy savings. We got in touch with Chris Benedict [architect at Chris Benedict R.A.] who presented the idea of constructing a Passive House. It wasn’t something we were familiar with at the time, but Chris had extensive experience in energy efficient buildings so we were interested in her ideas.

LO: What was the motivation for going forward with Passive House at Knickerbocker Commons and Mennonite United Revival Apartments?
RC: Knickerbocker Commons was the first Passive House building we designed, though it ended up being built second due to a lengthy design approval process. The reason we stuck with it through all of that was because the design showed us that we could build the same building type for the same cost, but with significantly more efficiency. The numbers showed that we could have boiler systems and heating plant distribution that were one third of the typical size and then allocate those savings toward the insulation and ventilation. We went through the same process at Mennonite United Revival Apartments, though it got approved a little faster.

LO: So it was a combination of both cost-effectiveness and high efficiency that drove you?
RC: Yes, it works so well in affordable housing because our rents are so stabilized and we’re unable to implement big rent increases, but we can make up that difference on the operations and maintenance side with high efficiency design.

LO: Did you find any overlap between Passive House design consulting and Enterprise Green Communities (EGC)?
RC: Since it was an affordable housing project, we had to go through EGC and there was a lot of overlap between the two but Passive House goes above and beyond by focusing on performance. That’s another thing that really drew us to Passive House, it’s quantifiable. Anyone can specify a high efficiency boiler but if it’s not installed correctly, you’re not going to get the results. We were much more comfortable with the Passive House standard because it’s more results-driven.

LO: How cost-effective was Passive House construction and how did that compare to the cost of a typical new construction project?
RC: I think what separates Passive House projects from a lot of other efficiency projects is that you can deliver the building at the same cost, and that’s hard and soft costs, as a typical new construction project. It was even an easier sell to the funding agencies because it wasn’t going to cost anything extra.

LO: Can you talk about the incentives that were available to you?
RC: There were some NYSERDA incentives available but we didn’t go all the way with them because we really wanted to show that the design was our main driver, not programs. We wanted to show that we didn’t need additional funding streams to build a highly efficient building.

LO: How has the energy performance of the Passive House buildings compared to the non-Passive House projects you’ve done? We’ve seen the analysis in EnergyScoreCards but we’d love to get your take.
RC: If we didn’t have EnergyScoreCards I don’t know how we would’ve been able to represent that we actually hit our marks on this. We’re seeing major savings, 80% to underwriting, for the same cost as typical construction. Next, we’re looking for ways to push the envelope even further. How can solar fit into lowering energy consumption at a building even more? Now that we’re comfortable with the way these buildings are performing, we’re working with HPD, HCR and groups like Enterprise to make this accessible to anyone who’s building in the City. We think everyone should be building this way and we think everyone can build this way.

The above graph, pulled from EnergyScoreCards, shows significantly lower energy indexes at RBSCC’s Passive House properties Knickerbocker Commons and Mennonite United Revival Apartments (shown in orange), compared to non-Passive House buildings (shown in blue).

LO: What changes would be effective in getting more passive houses built in New York City?
RC: I would say it’s related to performance. There are people that say they’re producing high performance buildings but are they actually getting the results? I was at a the quarterly Carbon Challenge meeting today and the sustainability department there said that typically we are constructing new buildings with the same efficiency as 30 or 40 years ago. To me, that’s the same as producing a Chevy 350 today in the same way that you would in 1970. We need to make sure we’re in buildings that reflect the technology that we have available. It’s not about getting your LEED sticker, and frankly, it’s not even about getting your Passive House certification. Building with the means and methods to produce efficient buildings, that’s really what we care about.

LO: What kind of feedback have you gotten from the residents of your Passive House buildings?
RC: I’d say there’s a learning curve. In the beginning people would complain that they didn’t have heat, but the super would go into the unit and see that it was 72 degrees. What they meant was that their baseboard wasn’t hot. They’re used to thinking that if the baseboard isn’t on, that means they don’t have heat, but because the building is so well-insulated, the apartment is comfortable without the baseboard heating being on. Now people understand that the temperature is balanced, no hot spots around the baseboards or cold spots above the windows. The number one thing we get compliments on is the ventilation. The cooking smells and smoke don’t travel to other units because there’s no stack. It’s also nice that there’s not a lot of technology associated with Passive House. There’s no complicated thermostat or anything that the residents need to know how to use.

LO: I think I know the answer to this one, but will you be building to the Passive House standard in the future?
RC: Yes. Before we started this I said if we can get this to work, this is the only way we should be building. Like I said, it’s not really even about the certification, it’s about understanding the means and methods of high efficiency buildings. That’s what concerns us as owners. We really want to build to that standard on every project, even now with renovations. It’s especially important in New York City where most of the housing that will be built, has already been built. We need to make sure our existing housing stock is energy efficient so we’re going to build to this standard and try to renovate to this standard and hopefully get to net zero in the future.