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

GoalsMACDADI: Goal tree

GSB Goal Tree

Task Force members defined and categorized project goals

PreferencesMACDADI: Survey

GSB Survey

Task Force members prioritized goals

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