Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Environmental Sustainability Task Force
Final Report
December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Executive Summary page 3
Guiding Principles page 4
LEED® certification page 5
Best Practices page 6
Green Technologies page 8
Investment/Cost Analyses page 9
MACDADI Preference Tool page 10
Task Force Members page 15
Appendices page 16
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 2 December 1, 2006
Final Report – Table of Contents
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Executive Summary
MissionThe GSB will take a leadership role in environmental sustainability in developing the Knight Management Center.
VisionThe new Knight Management Center should clearly exemplify the GSB’s leadership position on business and the environment and motivate other organizations and institutions to emulate this point of view.
As a campus of buildings the Knight Management Center will be: • a generator of clean energy • highly responsible in the use of water • an exceptional environment for people
The Knight Management Center will demonstrate that smart building design can dramatically reduce environmental impacts while only slightly increasing or even reducing lifetime cost. The campus will inspire the GSB community and, in turn, development of new environmentally sustainable products or services, environmental leadership among our alumni in varied fields, and personal commitment to the environment.
StrategyThe Environmental Sustainability Task Force recommends that the GSB seek Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) certification for the Knight Management Center. The Task Force membership unanimously agrees that LEED® certification should be sought for all buildings, with a strong consensus to seek LEED® Platinum. The certification level will be finally determined after cost estimates are better defined and funds to cover certification costs are raised.
* See Appendix A for the complete executive summary narrative
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 3 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
New Campus Guiding Principles
The Task Force developed Guiding Principles—the most important goals for the project—that the Knight Management Center must balance throughout design and construction:
1) Promote academic excellence through a campus that inspires its inhabitants, supports a healthy and productive teaching and learning environment, and is flexible and adaptable to changing pedagogies and technologies that will emerge in the coming years.
2) Sustain the environment and our GSB community by promoting interaction between and among GSB and Stanford students, faculty, alumni, and the global business community while reducing the environmental impact of campus construction and operations and actively participating in the sustainability movement.
3) Be economically responsible by using current and future financial resources wisely and anticipating economic costs and benefits beyond initial construction costs.
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 4 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
LEED® certification recommendation
Anticipated incremental green building and certification costs:
+2% +5% +7%
Construction cost ($150mm)
$3.0mm $7.5mm $10.5mm
LEED® registration $20k $20k $20k
LEED® documentation $450k $450k $450k
LEED® project mgmt $100k $100k $100k
Commissioning (0.5-2.0%)
$750k $1.9mm $3.0mm
Total $4.3mm $10.0mm $14.1mm
The Task Force strongly recommends that the GSB seek LEED® Platinum certification for all the buildings that will comprise the Knight Management Center.
* See Appendix B for a sample of a LEED® rating sheet
* See Appendix C for detail on LEED® certification costs, LEED® certification recommendation, and Justification for recommending LEED® certification
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 5 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Best Practices
Stanford
Environment & Energy BuildingGoals: Energy and water reduction; use of life cycle cost analysis
• Total cost of sustainable features = $6.2M (8% of total cost of construction)• Total cost premium of energy features = $2.04M (2.8% of total cost of construction)• Total building system performance: annual energy savings goal of 50%; projected savings of 48%
First Cost Premium: $2,038,754Annual Savings: $237,000Payback: 8.6 years
Green DormGoals: zero carbon; no potable water use
• Research based design: Heat recovery from waste shower water, Fuel cell capability, Water treatment
Other Universities
UC-Merced• 7 LEED-registered projects on campus—all seeking LEED® Silver—2 expected to be certified in Jan ‘07• Costs averaged 2-5% above baseline for each building• Working with USGBC on new program where multiple buildings in a campus environment can be certified
more easily and at lower cost than if registered individually
Yale University• Energy Task Force – Convened in Fall 2004, a university-wide committee made recommendations on
Yale’s approach to energy: Committed to investing in energy conservation and alternate energy sources that will lead--based on current projections--to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. (Similar commitment by the Connecticut State Legislature and the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Action Plan.)
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 6 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Best Practices (cont.)
Industry
Nike European Headquarters – highlights:• Facility converts to residential use if necessary• Window frames constructed from recyclable aluminum • All wood in construction and external is from certified managed forests • Sewage piping contains a large amount of Polyethylene instead of PVC
LucasFilm, Presidio, San Francisco – similarities to Stanford:• Air: operable windows, underfloor air • Materials: Recycled or reused steel, piping and crushed concrete from the demolished Letterman Hospital and its 13-acre asphalt parking lot (more than 80% of building materials were recycled)• Materials: sourced locally• Parking/Landscape: 1500 underground parking spots; existing trees reused and/or relocated
Experts in the Field• Jeff Koseff – Director, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
o A lack of water will be Stanford’s biggest problem in 20 yearso Using photovoltaics (PVs) makes an incredible statement; PV market is changing rapidly and
a third party could manage the systemo May reduce number of PVs we might like but add infrastructure now to add more later
• Daniel C. Esty – Director, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale Universityo Societal expectation that the best way to attack environmental problems is not via gov’t
channels but in the corporate sector and other non-governmental avenueso Use a green project as a teaching opportunity
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 7 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Green Technologies to consider
Site • Building orientation• On-site stormwater management/treatment• Drought-tolerant landscaping
Structure • Recycled content materials• High-volume flyash in concrete• Operable windows• Cool or green roof
• Prefabricated elements• Raised floor• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood• Spectrally-selective glazing
Systems • Geothermal• Photovoltaic (PV) and Building-Integrated
PV Panels (BIPV)• Solar hot water• Grey water
• Flexibility for future retrofit • Water conserving fixtures• Living System®• Radiant heat
Setting • Operable windows, with link to HVAC controls
• Energy efficient lighting• Modularity
Scenery • Recyclable furniture with recycled content • Organic foods• Low-VOC materials• Reclaimed/FSC certified wood
* See Appendix D for a short description of each technology listed above
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 8 December 1, 2006
Investment/Cost Analyses
The Task Force looked at several options for how to perform economic analyses on project costs to consider more than the first costs associated with the project.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is the Task Force’s preferred economic method of project evaluation that takes into account all costs arising from owning, operating, maintaining, and ultimately disposing of a building or a building systems over a given period, usually related to the life of the project.
LCCA takes into account the time value of money by discounting all cash flows to a common base date to make them time-equivalent before adding and comparing them. It also includes inflation and energy price projections over the length of the building lifetime horizon.
The Stanford Sustainability Guidelines currently recommend using a LCCA and provide the following guideline for evaluating decisions:
5 years or less to recover costs: required investment6 – 10 years to recover costs: strongly recommended investmentMore than 10 years to recover costs: discretionary investment
*Standard Payback methodology generally focuses on how quickly initial investment can be recovered but typically ignores all costs and savings occurring after the point at which payback is reached. The Payback method is not a measure of long-term economic performance or profitability.
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 9 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
MACDADI Preference Tool
MACDADI = Multi-Attribute Collective Decision Analysis of Design Initiatives
Developed by John Chachere and John Haymaker at Stanford’s School of Engineering, the MACDADI method enables a project team to more systematically, transparently, and precisely define and prioritize project goals and then assess tradeoffs among design options that impact those goals. By helping teams manage and communicate their goals, options, analyses, and decisions, MACDADI aims to improve consensus building and project performance.
The slides that follow illustrate the MACDADI process in action on the GSB project:
Goal Tree – enumerates and categorizes the goals for the GSB project
Survey – polls stakeholders to weight the importance of each goal
Survey Results – summarizes Task Force members’ relative preferences for each goal
Stanford Green Dorm Process – exemplifies how the data already developed at the GSB can be used in our next phases to evaluate design options with respect to the goals.
*See Appendix E for a print-out of the GSB survey
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 10 December 1, 2006
GSB Stakeholder Groups' Preferences: Tier 2 and Tier 3Preliminary Report by MACDADI Survey of the GSB Sustainability Committee
6 5 4 53 3 3 2 2 1 1
5 5 4 5 36 4 2 4 5 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 4
33 4 1 4 5 4 5
2 4 4
2 11
3
2
2 66 4
6
28
13
3
1 32
65 4
4 43 4
1
22 2
77
43
2
53 4
2
5
5
2
3
5 1
22 2
5
33
3 34 4
44 3 2
8
5
43
3
3 3 3
2
5
6 3
3
3
2
2
3 2
5
54
4 3
4 4
22 2 2
8
4
3 2
2
5 3 2
1
6
52
2
7
2
2
3 4
4
5
33 3
7 7
5
1 11
3
3
4 3
1
55
3
1
5
14
1
5
5
3
4 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Lig
htin
g
Air
Qu
alit
y
Te
mp
era
ture
Aco
ust
ics
Erg
on
om
ics
Stu
de
nt E
ng
ag
em
en
t
Fa
culty
En
ga
ge
me
nt
Ub
iqu
itou
s C
om
pu
ting
Sta
nfo
rd E
ng
ag
em
en
t
Ind
ust
ry E
ng
ag
em
en
t
Alu
mn
i En
ga
ge
me
nt
En
erg
y U
se
Wa
ter
Use
Ma
teri
als
Use
La
nd
Use
Sta
nfo
rd A
est
he
tic
Gre
en
Ima
ge
Be
au
ty
We
lco
me
Se
rio
usn
ess
Co
nfig
ua
bili
ty
Exp
an
da
bili
ty
Tra
nsp
ort
Op
tion
s
Fir
st C
ost
Op
era
ting
Co
sts
Pro
ject
Du
ratio
n
Lia
bili
ty
Ext
ern
al P
art
icip
atio
n
Inte
rna
l Pa
rtic
ipa
tion
Businesses
GSB Alumni
SU Community
GSB Staff
GSB Students
GSB Faculty
19% 19% 19% 14% 12% 11% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Comfort Interaction Environment Inspiration Programming Economy Green Movement
MACDADI: Survey results
Top Preferences for GSB Task Force –
Energy use and flexibility are top priorities
OptionsMACDADI: Green Dorm process as example
GSB Next Steps
1. GSB to enlarge stakeholder groups
2. GSB to refine goals and preferences
3. Designers propose options
4. Designers perform analyses
5. GSB assesses value
• Images are
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
100%
Day
lit
Ste
el
Cer
ifie
d W
oo
d
Fu
el C
ell
So
lar
H2O
Gre
yH2O
Hea
t
PV
Arr
ay
Dim
mer
s
Eve
nin
g D
im
Fix
ture
Op
tim
ize
Mo
nit
ors
Rai
nw
ater
Gre
y/B
lack
H2O
Gre
en F
inis
h
Gre
en R
oo
f
Tri
ple
Pan
es
Cle
rest
ory
Atr
ium
Students Faculty Department University Developers
Value of alternative for different stakeholders
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Task Force Members
GSB Faculty
Bill Barnett
Mary Barth
Erica Plambeck
Ken Singleton
Stanford Civil &
Environmental Engineering Faculty
John Haymaker
Students
Sam Goldman, MBA ’07
Sarah Chandler, MBA ’07
Alumni
Jo Conover, MBA ’79
Maria Eitel, SEP ’01
Shelley Ratay, MBA ’05
Brian Trelstad, MBA ’99
Heidi B. Welch, MBA ’90
GSB Staff
Kathleen Kavanaugh – convening chair
Terry Godfrey
Brigid McCormack
Karen Wilson
Stanford Staff
Laura Goldstein
*Special thanks to Kevin Burke of William McDonough + Partners for his input and participation
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 15 December 1, 2006
Click to add title
Click “View” > “Header and Footer” to edit name and date above.
Appendices
A. Executive SummaryB. LEED® checklist/rating sheetC. LEED® certification costs matrix, LEED® certification recommendation, and
Justification for recommending LEED® certificationD. Green technologies – full descriptionE. MACDADI survey – GSB
Environmental Sustainability Task Force – final report - 16 December 1, 2006
Top Related