AIA 2030 Commitment

In 2006, the national AIA Board of Directors adopted the 2030 Challenge on behalf of the entire architectural profession. In order to document the progress of firms in meeting the targeted goals, the AIA 2030 Commitment was developed as a voluntary reporting program for firms to use. To participate, firms sign a commitment letter, identify their own sustainability plan, and report annually with some very fundamental data on each project in the office. Since the year 2010, design firms from all over the United States have been tracking and reporting on all of their projects, not just award winners, with more than 2.6 billion square feet of project work reported in 2015 alone.

The type of reporting information asked for is fairly straightforward. After some basic descriptive information (project name, building type, square footage, stage of design), a baseline EUI and the predicted EUI (pEUI) based on the design is requested. The baseline is most readily determined from the ENERGY STAR online Target Finder database. The pEUI is ideally calculated from a computerized energy model or, at the very least, a calculation based on current minimum code compliance. The difference between the baseline EUI and the pEUI, expressed as a percentage, is then readily determined for each project and ultimately as an average for all of the firm’s projects. If the total currently comes out to a 70 percent reduction or better, then the firm is on track with the 2030 challenge goals. If not, it lets designers know so they can respond in their design process accordingly. For projects that are limited to interior upgrades, a full EUI comparison is not needed, but a similar calculation for lighting power density (LPD) is needed. This is a fairly straightforward calculation of dividing the number of watts of electricity needed for interior lighting by the total number of square feet that are lit to determine the watts per square foot. The actual LPD of the design is then compared to the baseline thresholds in the IECC or ASHRAE 90.1 to determine if there is improvement to the lighting efficiency.

Photo courtesy of Vectorworks, Inc./Kipnis Architecture + Planning

Kipnis Architecture + Planning (KAP) in Evanston, Illinois, was an early adopter of the AIA 2030 Commitment and likes the fact that the firm can not only see how it is doing internally, but it can also anonymously compare its projects to the work of other firms.

One of the earliest firms to sign on to the AIA 2030 Commitment was Kipnis Architecture + Planning (KAP) in Evanston, Illinois, headed by Nathan Kipnis, FAIA. He notes that the firm is “guided by the idea that architectural design excellence need not be sacrificed for principles of sustainability. Rather, we believe green design expands the possibilities for innovative architectural forms, construction methods, and the use of materials.” With a particular dedication to significantly reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from as many of its building projects as possible, the firm takes the approach of reviewing and assessing its work throughout the design process in a holistic or “total systems integration” manner. A large part of its success in this regard has been based on its use of BIM and related computer software on projects of all sizes and types. Typically, the firm starts with a baseline design and then compares individual components or systems using whole-building computer modeling. As the best-performing solutions are determined, the designers can make incremental design decisions based on the impact of each component as demonstrated in the modeled performance. The firm points out that the real opportunities to find improvements to energy performance are at the beginning of the design process, not later—by understanding the impacts early, adjustments can be made easily and efficiently to optimize the design. As a small firm, it has found essentially no barriers to employing this process since there are plenty of easy-to-use, affordable computer programs available.

Nathan has seen the 2030 Commitment program grow and evolve in recent years and notes that “the main difference of late has been the AIA’s much more formalized Design Data Exchange (DDx) platform for recording predicted project energy use. The DDx is very interactive and provides for comparisons between a specified group of projects.” He also likes the fact that a firm can store up all of the information on its projects in one place online and refer to it as needed. By utilizing the DDx, a firm can not only see how it is doing internally, but it can also anonymously compare its projects to the work of other firms. This helps the firm gauge its relative performance among its peers, which some firms have used in their marketing strategies to gain new clients or better serve existing ones.

Taking It to the Max: Passive House and the Living Building Challenge

By now it should be clear that many design professionals and others are engaged in creating buildings that are increasingly energy efficient and sustainable. In some cases, there are those who have realized that there is no reason to wait until the year 2030 or even 2020 to create net-zero buildings—it is technologically possible and economically achievable now. Two programs are leading the charge in this regard.

Passive House

In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers in Germany began looking at ways to achieve extreme reductions in energy use in residential buildings. That work led to the creation of the German “Passivhaus” and the international Passive House Institute (PHI), which develop standards for buildings with a 90 percent reduction in energy consumption compared to typical buildings. In response to the growing number of people internationally who began to embrace the principles behind this work, the membership-based International Passive House Association (iPHA) was created. In 2007, the work of this group influenced a small group in the United States to create the similar, but separate, Passive House Institute US (PHIUS) and the membership-based Passive House Alliance US (PHAUS). In 2015, these not-for-profit U.S. groups, with public and private funding, developed updated standards that were adjusted to suit the different climate conditions across the United States. Known as the PHIUS+ 2015 standard, it targets performance levels that balance investment and payback, thus presenting an affordable solution to achieve comfort and cost-effective energy efficiency using the best path to net-zero energy. The cost-optimized PHIUS+2015 standard has spurred new growth in passive buildings across the country, with the most significant gains coming from the multifamily housing sector. Overall, Passive House has rapidly grown in popularity, with more than 60,000 housing units in place worldwide as of early 2017, including more than 1.1 million square feet across 1,200 units in the United States.

Image courtesy of Whitney Architecture, Seattle

Buildings designed to meet Passive House standards can use dramatically less energy than other similar buildings and still be designed to beautifully meet all of the aesthetic and functional requirements of the building, such as this one designed by Whitney Architecture in Seattle.

The principles behind Passive House design and construction focus first on optimizing the building envelope, specifically by relying on super-insulation levels, complete air infiltration control, and high-performance products, such as doors, windows, sealants, etc. The concept also recognizes the capability of the sun to provide a noticeable amount of passive solar heat gain in cold months, while using natural or added shading in the summer to help keep the building cool and comfortable. Because of these critical first steps, a full HVAC system is often not required. Instead, only a small air ventilation system with supplemental heat and humidity control is typically enough to keep everyone comfortable. Further, since the energy demand is so low, adding a small solar electric/photovoltaic (PV) array becomes a very affordable way to get to net-zero energy.

In order for a building to be certified under the Passive House program, the designer must complete training to be certified under a PHIUS program. One such designer, Markus Barrera-Kolb, a project architect and Certified Passive House Consultant (CPHC) with Whitney Architecture in Seattle, provides a good perspective on engaging in the program. First, he points out that verification of designs relies on using a computer analysis based on specific PHIUS software developed in cooperation with the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, which is known as WUFI Passive and available in both a free and paid version. “While some BIM software isn’t yet ready for direct use in Passive House modeling, in our office, we’ve worked over the past few years to maximize the benefit of our BIMs in obtaining the data for our Passive House energy models as efficiently and accurately as possible,” he says. Some other architects also report using their 3-D BIMs in conjunction with the Passive House software as being highly beneficial because they find it to help both efficiency and quality control.

Markus Barrera-Kolb also comments on the impact of being trained in the principles of Passive House design, saying, “I can’t overstate the significance and usefulness of Passive House. Even for architects who may not end up modeling their own projects, or for that matter even work on certified buildings, the in-depth knowledge and applicable skills and tools that are gained through Passive House training will make a huge, positive impact on their practice going forward.” Clearly, he sees the value in bringing the design principles of Passive House to all projects that a firm works on and echoes what others have found as well. Namely, that Passive House design empowers them as designers while helping to communicate to clients how using key building science principles and technologies directly translates to added value for them.