Hawaii Preparatory Academy Energy Lab

Living Building Challenge requirements:

The LBC framework restricts materials sources. The remoteness of the location made it challenging to find building materi- als that were located within the allowed distance radius that did not contain Red List materials. In several cases, the contractor resorted to making their own products on site. For example, the team was not able to find acoustic panels that did not contain formaldehyde or flame retardants, so the contractor made them from cotton and a frame made from Forest Stewardship Council certified wood.

 

Project management:

LBC requires a highly integrated process that demands more of the project team members than a typical project. It also requires careful coordination and daily input, review and communication among most of the consultants. These management issues were particularly challenging for the Energy Lab project due to the building’s remote location and the geographic distance between the various team members. The team overcame these communication obstacles using conference calls, video conferences, Skype and e-mail.

 

Simulation analysis:

This can be an excel- lent tool when existing conditions are known and accurate, and when site specific weather data is available. Because this project was located in a microclimate, simulation analysis was useful, but it did not pinpoint actual climate conditions and energy consumption. The Energy Lab was designed as a very low- energy building, and yet it is operating at a fraction of the energy that was estimated. Due to the abundance of daylight and different natural ventilation options (windows, doors, shutters, louvers, deep overhangs, and skylights with diffuse light), the building operates passively in sunny, cloudy and wet conditions. As a result, the backup air-conditioning units and fans have yet to be used.

 

Operations staff involvement: Engaging the operations staff in the project from the design phase so they can understand what the goals are, how the building should be performing and how it can be optimized at different times of the day or year, is essential.

 

A sophisticated building automation system: It is worth investing in a system that gives operations staff access to detailed data and allows them to under- stand how the building operates under different conditions; they begin to see patterns and can quickly identify erratic underperformance. The operations staff can operate systems more efficiently if need be. For example, in December 2010, low solar resources and some cloudy days caused the PV system to generate less electricity, so the staff turned off equipment to balance use with the available power. The BAS also enabled staff to identify erratic energy usage resulting from cyber vandalism, which occurred soon after the Energy Lab opened; systems were turned on remotely, which led to higher energy consumption for the month.

 

Phasing in renewable energy:

When energy neutrality is the goal, it is helpful to phase in renewable energy systems; they are expensive and have an environmental impact. Accurate data to determine actual needs also is critical, as benchmark and manufacturers’ data are not reliable enough for a team to accurately size a system. In the case of the Energy Lab, the tools and information available to the team caused the system to be slightly oversized. In this case, the Energy Lab has exported the excess electricity to the rest of the campus, which aligned with its goal of being energy neutral in the next few years. In other cases, it is wiser to phase in new systems.