Executive Order 13423 Technical Guidance - Frequently Asked Questions

Who is the target audience?
The information provided in this technical guidance is customized to be of use and interest to a variety of possible users. This technical guidance is intended to assist all those who are involved with the design, construction, and operation of sustainable federal facilities. Individuals representing this group include the people responsible for energy management within an agency, private-sector design team members (e.g., architects, engineers, and contractors), individual facility managers, preventative maintenance staff, and contractors hired to operate federal facilities. Those impacting decisions affecting sustainable federal facility projects will also find this technical guidance helpful (e.g., agency policy makers and those involved in the procurement process for supporting sustainable federal facility projects).

How does the MOU relate to EPACT 2005?
The MOU was developed concurrently with the Congressional passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), which went into effect on August 8, 2005. The energy-related commitment and guidance included in the MOU reflect the EPAct 2005 requirements.

What type of building does the MOU apply to?
The Guiding Principles are intended to apply to all government owned, leased, or otherwise operated buildings, which are deemed to be appropriate, given the size and resource-intensity of the structure.

1. Appropriate Buildings. Some enclosed relatively low-energy-using buildings do not have to be consistent with industry standard building ratings such as LEED and Energy Star. Buildings not appropriate for the consistency requirement include: enclosed storage buildings, oil and paint storage buildings, open pole sheds, public restroom buildings, maintenance shops, pump houses, etc. Appropriate buildings have a total cost greater than $1 million.
2. Pre-engineered Metal Building Systems. From a value engineering point of view, often the most cost effective building for enclosed storage buildings, oil and paint storage buildings, public restroom buildings, maintenance shops, and pump houses, is a pre-engineered metal building system with metal wall and roof panels on a structural steel frame. Such buildings must be as energy efficient as possible, including high-efficiency heating equipment, insulation, energy-efficient doors, windows, etc. These type of buildings can also take advantage of passive solar heating by substituting translucent fiberglass panels in place of metal wall panels on the south facing side of the building and providing simple overhangs to shade this glazing during the summer. This glazing in combination with a much smaller amount of vertical glazing on the north side can also provide balanced daylighting. In vary large buildings translucent fiberglass panels can also be used in the roof to provide daylighting to the interior, but this should only be done in buildings that are not air conditioned since simple fiberglass roof skylights can also introduce summer solar heat gain.
3. Other Buildings and Facilities. Enclosed relatively low-energy-using buildings and facilities that do not have to be consistent with industry standard building ratings such as LEED and Energy Star should be as energy efficient as possible, including high-efficiency heating equipment, insulation, energy-efficient doors, windows, etc.
4. Residences. New residences should be designed to comply with State or local utility company requirements for residential energy use, as a minimum.
5. Leased Buildings. As much as possible and practicable, energy and water efficiency shall be considered when Bureaus enter into new leases or renegotiated/extended existing leases.

What guidance is available for specialized building types?
WBDG—Building Types
Ammunition and Explosive Storage Magazines, Armories, Aviation Hangar, Child Development Centers, Community Services, Federal Courthouse, Health Care Facilities, Land Port of Entry, Libraries, Office Building, Parking Facilities, Research Facilities, Training Facility, Warehouse

Other
Labs 21

What if local or regional building codes are more stringent than the MOU guidance?
It's not uncommon to have local/state/regional building codes that are more stringent than the Federal building codes, whether they relate to the Uniform Building Codes, Energy Codes, and/or Environmental/Sustainability Codes. Even though, technically speaking, Federal Codes do pre-empt local & regional codes, many Federal agencies involved with the Design, Construction, Renovation, and Operation & Maintenance of their Federal buildings/facilities located in a local community, earnestly try to comply with the applicable relevant codes, particularly as they relate to health, welfare, and safety, in order to be a good community neighbor. Sometimes, this phenomenon may create serious jurisdictional as well as cost & resources problems. However, from a sustainability viewpoint, it makes perfect sense for the Feds to remain sensitive to the local/regional requirements. Thus, it is proposed that the subject MOU provide a General Guidance on what/how this local/Federal partnership should sustain. For Guidance purposes, refer to EPAct 2005, Section 109 for new Federal Building Design & Construction Energy Code requirements.

What reporting is required?
OMB Scorecard, President's Management Agenda, PART

Emissions Reductions:
USDOE/FEMP requires that SAVEnergy Audit contractors provide Emission Reduction & Cost Savings Results, as part of the Final SAVEnergy Action Plan Report, for new and existing buildings, using such tools as the Leonardo Academy-developed "Cleaner and Greener Emission Reduction Calculator." This is particularly significant for the existing Federal buildings that go through comprehensive Energy Audits and receive life-cycle-cost-effective Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) recommendations for implementation. Among the types of Emissions reduction reported in the Final Reports are CO2, VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, Particulates, Toxic Metals, and Hg, in pounds, milligrams, equivalent tons and/or quantities, respectively. Many federal agencies include these measures in their Report Cards every year, as part of the USDOE/FEMP's annual report to the Congress on compliance with the Energy and Environmental Policy Acts and relevant Executive Orders.

Other
Leonardo Academy's "Cleaner and Greener Emission Reduction Calculator"

Why should I use rating systems and standards?
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires Federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies" unless such use is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Under OMB Circular A-119, agencies can also use other technical standards in cases where no voluntary consensus standards exist.

There was great wisdom in Executive Order 13101 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) in guiding Federal agencies to use and develop voluntary consensus standards. Consumers benefit from standards in that they provide confidence in a product or service's quality, safety, and reliability. Businesses benefit from standards in that they reduce cost, provide interoperability, promote regulatory compliance, reduce liability exposure, and provide organizations with a competitive advantage. Governments benefit from standards in that they achieve public policy objectives for a host of environmental concerns, lower regulatory and procurement costs, promote exports, trade, and economic growth, and comply with the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Green building standards are at the forefront of environmental preferability standards in many ways: taking an holistic, systems approach; pushing the science of life cycle analysis; asking the tough questions about chemicals of concern; and balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations. And, the leaders in green building standard development are engaging stakeholders in a very open, transparent process. These standard methodologies, rating systems, and other metrics provide a larger framework in which to organize and implement green programs at the national level. The use of green building standards fits well in the government context, considering the Federal government's massive size, hierarchical structure, and typical way of doing business. The use of green building standards will also make the job of implementation easier, reducing the duplication of background research by the many parties working on green building, and giving an official stamp of approval to justify sustainable design and construction work.

The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive encourages the development of sustainable buildings using agreed upon criteria that are determined in a scientific and life cycle based manner, and can be verified by a process that is credible and transparent to the public. To date, the LEED™ has been the main and "best" mechanism available to do that. As a result, many federal agencies, including GSA, EPA, and DOD, have made LEED a policy for their facilities. However, we are open to other models and tools as they become available, and at the same time, applaud those who use LEED to enhance their buildings and have received various levels of certification.

In the interim, we are working with USGBC to address environmental performance criteria and standards development process issues as they move into new standards and later versions of the existing standards. We are also working with Green Globes and other organizations as they develop sustainable building standards.

Major Resources
WBDG—Products and Systems
Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers: 01421 - Environmental References

Publications
ASTM Inst. Standards on Sustainability in Building—CD-ROM of 111 standards.

Other
GreenGlobes—mapping MOU commitments to Green Globes credits.
USGBC LEED™ Rating System—mapping MOU commitments to LEED credits.

What is Life-Cycle Costing?
Life-cycle cost (LCC) method, n—a technique of economic evaluation that sums over a given study period the costs of initial investment (less resale value), replacements, operations (including energy use), and maintenance and repair of an investment decision (expressed in present or annual value terms). From ASTM E2114-06, Standard Terminology for Sustainability Relative to the Performance of Buildings, ASTM International

Through a life-cycle cost (LCC) method the economic impacts of buildings can be assessed and estimated over the life of the structure. Building owners, designers, governmental entities, and interested parties can use life-cycle cost/benefit analyses to aid in making of decisions that advance sustainability of buildings. Through LCC, direct costs/benefits to the building owner or tenant and indirect external costs/benefits to the community or society can be estimated.

Major Resources
WBDG—Design Objectives
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
WBDG—Tools
Building Life Cycle Costing (BLCC)

Publications
The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities, FEMP.
The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Force by Greg Kats. October 2003.