Why We Can’t Wait for PhiusCon 2021

PhiusCon 2021 is nearly upon us, and the excitement is palpable.

This will be the first opportunity for all the leading building science professionals in the country to be under one roof in nearly two years. Our team at Phius has spent nearly that long preparing for PhiusCon, so to say we are thrilled that the conference is finally here would be a substantial understatement.

We have written blogs (here and here), sent emails and posted on social media almost nonstop over the last few months in an attempt to keep all interested parties informed of the details of PhiusCon 2021. But now that it’s nearly go-time, we wanted you to hear straight from the Phius team exactly why we are so fired up for the conference.

 

Katrin HeadshotKatrin Klingenberg, Co-Founder & Executive Director

Be with my tribe again IN PERSON — like-minded, determined, passionate, caring people…feeling the energy and excitement…looking forward to recharge, design, envision the future with everyone…listen to Joe talking about what red wine and buildings have in common…and of course geek out plenty! And then there is the Building Science Boogie Band…can’t wait.

 

 

 

 

isaac picIsaac Elnecave, Certification Staff

I am looking forward to meeting the builders and developers who turn the Phius standard into actual buildings that people can live and work in. These are the people who turn our ideas into reality. 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael FrancoMichael Franco, Product Certification Program Coordinator

I’m very excited to see what our exhibitors have to show our attendees. It’ll be really interesting to see some of the physical models and displays of products that we certify and that our practitioners use in their buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

photographs by lawrence braunJohn Loercher, Certification Staff

I’m most looking forward to the time in between sessions: planned meetups and impromptu conversations. This is always a time to be open to new possibilities, connections and ideas that keep me learning and challenge me to think outside of my current perspective. This year, considering the location of the conference center, I am looking forward to a lot of that happening outside along the Hudson River with a special view of the NYC skyline.

 

 

 

 

32tev__gGraham Wright, Senior Scientist & Chair of the Phius Technical Committee

I am looking forward to meeting with the Phius Technical Committee, and to Joe Lstiburek’s keynote address.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

James OrtegaJames Ortega, Project Certification Manager

I’m most excited for Phius’ constituents to meet Phius’ new team in person. I simply can’t wait for my new colleagues to get a glimpse at how wonderful and enthusiastic this community is.

 

 

 

 

 

Al MitchellAl Mitchell, Technical Staff

I am most excited to put faces to names, and meet all of the passive building people in person.  I also am hoping for some informal, idea generation over a round or two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steven Reid-WynnSteven Reid-Wynn, Office Administrator

I’ve never attended a conference before so I’m excited to experience it for the first time. It’ll be great to learn even more about how others are working toward getting to zero.

 

 

 

 

 

SONY DSCLisa White, Associate Director

I’m most excited for the inspiration and spark we all get to take away from it. It’s hard to explain, but after an exhausting jam-packed week, I always find myself reinvigorated, inspired, and even more motivated to take on the next year. 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike KnezovichMichael Knezovich, Director of Communications

When these people get together and geek out over building science, I get jolts of energy and inspiration. That doesn’t happen on Zoom. It just doesn’t. I can’t wait. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Max LapthorneMax Lapthorne, Marketing Communications Specialist

I have never attended a professional conference, and am not a building science expert, so I am most looking forward to soaking in the atmosphere and learning from the brightest minds in the field.

 

 

 

 

 

Josh RuedinJosh Ruedin, Professional Training and Education Programs Manager

I’m looking forward to meeting our instructors and past trainees in person. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jennie EberJennie Eber, Alliance Constituent Coordinator

I’m so excited to meet Alliance members at the Annual Member meeting on Thursday night.

Guidance on Retrofits and Decarbonization for All Buildings

32tev__gEmbodied carbon is an important and complicated subject. Phius Senior Scientist Graham Wright helps sort it out and discusses Phius’ new REVIVE program in this post.

Let’s talk about retrofit, starting with the proposition that we need to decarbonize all buildings by 2050.

Stopping direct emissions is a good start; the electrification crowd is right about that. But only stopping direct emissions just moves the burden onto the utility/energy supplier, and they have to contend with transportation electrification as well.

The key question for the building sector, and for society at large, is how much effort/investment to put into increasing the clean energy supply, versus reducing the demand by such measures as passive building and heat pumps.  

The scale of the required transition is daunting no matter which way we approach it, especially considering that we have to do all of this utility infrastructure and building retrofit work without throwing off a lot of emissions in the process. The embodied carbon crowd is right about that, though I think a materials focus doesn’t go far enough.  

One way to get at the balance-of-investment question is with the idea of life-cycle cost. What mix of grid upgrades and building upgrades minimizes the total cost of getting the job done, on an annualized/life-cycle basis? I brightened up to this when it occurred to me that carbon could be included in that calculation by including a cost of carbon. Let’s use full-cost accounting!  

That price might be set based on the cost of, say, direct air capture of CO2, that is, at some point it becomes cheaper to actually pull the carbon back out of the air. The full-cost metric I am thinking of would include all of the following:

Tentative name: Annualized Decarbonization of Retrofitted Building Cost (ADORB Cost)

ADORB Cost = sum of the following components, each an annual/annualized cost:

  • Direct energy cost. E.g. site kWh * $/kWh = $
  • Direct building retrofit measures cost (material & labor) including building-level electrification cost. E.g. ft3 of stuff * $/ft3 = $
  • Social cost of carbon, upfront/embodied. CO2e kg * $/kg = $
  • Social cost of carbon, operating. CO2e kg * $/kg = $
  • Energy system transition cost (e.g. new utility solar + storage). $/MWh * MWh = $

The idea would be that a baseline cost in this sense is calculated for the scenario of continuing to operate and maintain the building as is for some decades. Any proposed retrofit should at least have a lower cost than that, hopefully much lower. Basically one designs as if there’s a carbon price. (In a baseline case I calculated for my apartment, 70 percent of it was the carbon cost of continuing to operate the gas furnace and water heater, even after the grid electricity was completely decarbonized).

This seems useful, but there are a few issues with it, therefore it can’t be our only lens. 

Issue 1 

It would not prohibit supply chain emissions from the retrofit work. Arguably the ideal is, call it Absolute Zero: No CO2 emissions occur anywhere in the building delivery/retrofit process, supply chain, or the building operating life, at any time. We need to decarbonize everything — the whole economy. In this view, the policy stance is that any carbon capture tech is devoted to removing carbon previously emitted, not keeping up with new work.  

All the current net-zero and carbon-neutral programs have this limitation. We can’t really do everything without emissions yet, so in order to convince ourselves we are zero there all these offsets and avoided-carbon credit schemes. I’m starting to agree with the youth climate activists that this is weaselly.  

Issue 2

At the system level, it’s tricky to use cost to decide grid-versus-building investment, because those costs in turn depend on which approach we decide to scale up in the first place. Commit to industrialized retrofit construction and those costs can come down. Commit to scaling renewable generation and transmission and those costs can come down.  

Issue 3

It’s not clear how to make this full-cost metric take into account that some things just can’t happen fast enough. For example, renewable generation and even transmission may not cost that much, but siting the required high-power transmission lines from remote western wind and solar farms to eastern cities might take too long.  

Issue 4

We’ve gotten into trouble across the board lately with our global economy by trying to minimize cost without regard to resilience. It’s more resilient to do extra things to reduce building loads rather than putting the ball in the grid’s court to both decarbonize AND stay up.  

McKeesport RetrofitTherefore, I am thinking that our new REVIVE Pilot program for building retrofit needs a number of different frameworks. I have listed them below along with a few possible elements of each:

Land use

  • Retrofit, replace/redevelop, or raze/rewild?
  • FEMA hazard assessment
  • Emerging climate hazard assessment (e.g. derecho, wildfire smoke)

Decarbonization

  • Cease direct emissions.
  • Use and generate renewable energy (reconsider off-site renewables framework).
  • Re-use high-embodied carbon structure.
  • Calculate a carbon score (no criterion, just how low can you get, i.e. without offsets).

Cost/Financial/Equity

  • Calculate ADORB cost, goal to at least beat the existing condition.
  • Use load reduction, grid interactivity and storage to financial advantage.
  • Limit the cost burden on low-income people.
  • Look to make policy cases for feebates, incentives.

Resilience 

  • Design for outages and known/emerging hazards.
  • On-site/local power, microgrids, on-site/local repair parts
  • Design for low loads.

Quality and Health

  • Assess existing deficiencies (EPA indoor air quality risk list).
  • Audits: tests, energy models?
  • Commissioning & documenting that goals are met (e.g. ASHRAE 202)

Phase planning

  • Scope includes operations, not just design.
  • Plan covers both an end state and interim retrofit phases.
  • Try to cover critical loads in the first phase.

I will have a bit more to say about this at PhiusCon 2021 this October 12-15 in Tarrytown, New York. The REVIVE Pilot program is in pilot phase, looking for sample projects, and the goal is to have an on-ramp in place. The general development strategy is to evolve from informational guidance to hard requirements in an orderly way, preferably without much backtracking.  

Our existing Phius Certification program for retrofit projects remains available through the Phius CORE REVIVE 2021 and Phius ZERO REVIVE 2021 programs, outlined in Section 3 of the Phius Certification Guidebook.

Regards,

Graham

New Brand. Expanded Vision. Same Phius.

A lot can change in 18 years.

While our core values at Phius have remained constant since our inception as an affordable housing organization in 2003, our vision has expanded significantly. Our goals are more ambitious than ever, and the methods by which we plan to achieve them are ever-changing.

New Brand Same Phius GraphicIn an effort to properly reflect the evolution of our organization, we thought it necessary to reimagine the Phius brand. But before you roll your eyes, it is important to know that this is much more than a new color scheme and font family; this is an update to more accurately reflect who we are as an organization.

The process has included surveying stakeholders, internal organization evaluations, spirited discussions about Phius’ future, and yes, some interesting logo iterations. Those efforts resulted in the establishment of the foundation on which the Phius brand will continue to build.

You have likely already noticed the new Phius logo and color scheme, as we have been slowly integrating it over the past several months. Our annual conference also has a new name: PhiusCon. Aside from being a bit snappier than the North American Passive House Conference, the new name makes clear that Phius is synonymous with passive building. 

Speaking of PhiusCon 2021, attendees will get an early look at the completely overhauled Phius professional portal and brand new website that is to be launched in the new year. Our talented website team has been working tirelessly to improve the functionality and reorganize all the valuable resources we have accumulated over nearly two decades. These new tools will provide a much smoother user experience, and we cannot wait to share them with you.

Phius is still the premier zero-energy and carbon neutral ready building solution. It is still the leader in educating and certifying professionals on passive building best practices. Its ultimate goal is still to make Phius the mainstream building standard. But in order to do those things the best way possible, we needed to expand our vision. This re-branding serves as the outer layer of a plan for the future that permeates all aspects of our mission, including the renewable energy transition and how Phius buildings interact with the new grid.

We have made great progress in our quest, but there is still a lot of work to be done. And as our organization evolves to meet the challenges ahead, we want to make sure you are right there with us.

Chicago Regulation Change Provides Opportunity for Phius Professionals

Al Mitchell

Al Mitchell

Phius Technical Staff Member Al Mitchell wrote this week’s blog post, which discusses the recent change in regulations related to coach houses in Chicago, and how designing these new buildings to Phius standards is a win-win for all parties.

The City of Chicago has lifted a nearly half-century ban on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), opening up a door for some people to build additional units on their property. The pilot program for ADU construction pertains to rentable units, occupiable by relatives, tenants, or even to be used as additional space from the primary home. There are two types of ADUs acknowledged by this regulation: a detached dwelling unit, such as a coach house or apartment on top of the garage, or a conversion unit, such as a built-out attic or basement.

However, there are a handful of caveats to consider. First, the allowances for ADUs, whether coach houses or conversion units, are limited to select pilot zones. There are five pilot zones: North, Northwest, West, South, and Southeast. These zones cover portions of 25 of the 77 Chicago community areas. Each area has a few special requirements for different types of ADU. For example, the North and Northwest zones can have a coach house built on the property before a primary house is built, while the other three zones require a primary house to be built on the lot before a coach house can be built. In the West, South, and Southwest zones, buildings must be owner-occupied in order to add a conversion unit. All ADUs in Chicago are to be rented for a minimum period of 1 month, and there is a requirement for a certain number of affordable units on larger properties where more units can be added.

 

Blog Pic 1This offers a great opportunity for people to add value to their property, create flexible living spaces (especially to take advantage of the benefits of multi-generational housing) or build a unit that can provide additional income for the owner while providing right-sized, cost-effective housing for another person. Approximately 70% of the lots in Chicago are 25 feet wide and face broadside south, making the applicability of this format broad. The aim of this blog is to make the case for building these newly allowed accessory dwelling units following the Phius passive building standards to create comfortable spaces, save energy and operational costs, and provide spaces that can weather inclement weather conditions, especially during a failure of space conditioning.

Analysis

Conversion units like the ones proposed in Chicago, would likely require a complete building retrofit to achieve the maximum cost and energy saving potential. This study is going to focus on detached coach houses, of maximum permitted dimensions. This comes at an apt time for Phius, as 2021 has marked the release of a user-friendly and streamlined prescriptive compliance path, as well as the performance target curves have been reworked to include allowances for small living spaces (in response to the tiny home craze).

Looking at coach house potentials, four cases were selected for evaluation. Three of the cases represent a single-story unit, one in the place of the garage, one pushed forward with open parking on the alley, and one built on top of the garage. The fourth case is a two-story coach house with no garage. The smaller units are studios, with no bedroom considered, one occupant, and the two-story coach house has one bedroom and two occupants. The standard kit of appliances is a dishwasher, refrigerator, and an induction range. Electric resistance water heaters are used in the base cases and a split heat pump system provides space conditioning.

The base cases follow code minimum constructions and windows per IECC 2018.  An envelope airtightness of 0.31 CFM50/sqft was used to match typical construction. The Phius CORE Prescriptive Path follows the prescriptive requirements per Chicago – Midway airport, and uses the default airtightness of 0.04 CFM50/sqft. The prescriptive path windows are whole window U-Values, and are set based on the required prescriptive comfort standards. Per the water heater efficiency requirements, the water heater was upgraded to a small heat pump water heater. The performance path uses 0.06 CFM50/sqft as the required airtightness metric, and follows the same window set as the prescriptive path. A heat pump water heater was used.  The other opaque assemblies were backed off from the conservative prescriptive path to meet the required calculated targets. Please reference the table below for the envelope performance specs in the study.

 

Case Wall R Roof R Slab R Window-U Airtightness CFM50/sf
IECC 2018 18.4 44.0 10.6 0.3 0.31
Phius 2021 CORE Prescriptive 40.0 71.0 21.6 0.16 0.04
Phius 2021 CORE 26.8 52.0 17.2 0.16 0.06
Blog Pic 2

 

Conclusion

The cases designed to Phius standards prove to reduce the space conditioning loads significantly, as shown in the Space Conditioning Results Chart. These outputs are specific per area, making it easy to compare different building sizes. Per the Source Energy Chart, the Prescriptive and Performance averages save 35% and 30% respectively. These source energy savings directly reflect the anticipated savings on an electrical power bill for the tenant of these coach houses.

Coach houses built to these passive building guidelines project significant energy savings that will directly benefit the occupants of these buildings, on top of the other comfort and passive survivability (what happens during a power failure – stay tuned for a part two blog). The required upgrades to meet the performance path is principally based around better windows and airtightness, saving on other insulation requirements per the prescriptive path. 

Blog Pic 3

The Phius Difference: Custom Energy Design Targets for Heating and Cooling — The Key to Zero

Katrin Klingenberg -- Co-Founder & Executive Director, Phius (Passive House Institute US)

Katrin Klingenberg — Co-Founder & Executive Director, Phius (Passive House Institute US)

The Klingenblog’s namesake, Katrin Klingenberg, wrote this week’s blog, examining custom energy design targets and how Phius’ approach to them sets the organization apart in the quest for Zero.

Designing zero energy and zero carbon buildings today can be cost effective if guided by the appropriate targets for investment in efficiency first. These targets are cost-optimized limits on heating and cooling loads.

The limits on heating and cooling loads are set to guide the design to a cost-optimal investment in passive conservation strategies: insulation (the appropriate amount, properly installed), dedicated continuous air, water, and vapor control layers, mitigation and avoidance of thermal bridging, high-performance windows (with appropriately tuned solar gain) and dedicated balanced ventilation with filtration and energy recovery. These principles ensure building resilience, health, comfort, safety and durability.

The cost optimization to set the targets focused on achieving the highest source energy savings (relative to a code baseline) for the least total cost (including the up-front cost of energy-saving measures, and ongoing operational costs). It factors in the cost of materials and the cost of energy supply in each particular region to calculate the sweet-spot. At some point, up-front conservation measures don’t pencil, and that’s when any additional investment should shift to active conservation strategies or active renewable energy generation systems.  These climate-optimized, project-specific targets for thermal performance define the cost-effective sweet spot on the path to zero.

The thermal performance targets are known in the industry as “Annual Heating Demand” and “Annual Cooling Demand.” They are expressed in kBTU per square foot per year or — in the metric world — in kWh per square meter per year. They are, in concept, similar to the Energy Use Intensity (EUI), but refer to the delivered heating and cooling energy required by the building. These annual space conditioning demands can only be met with passive measures and dial in the thermal performance of the building. Once those are met, a conservation-first focused total energy budget is set to guide investment in active measures. This limit is also project-specific, and can be expressed in the EUI we are all familiar with — the amount of energy used by a building per unit of floor area per year, including space conditioning and all other energy uses. That EUI can be converted into an emissions equivalent as needed to determine offsets needed to achieve zero carbon. Voila! It’s that easy!

Phius is the only building certification program that has developed such design and certification targets. They are available on the Phius website in an easy-to-use calculator. Choose climate, enter building square footage and occupancy, and you get your optimized design parameters! They are also built into the easy-to-use design and certification tool, WUFI(R)  Passive.

Before supercomputing, managing such a complex, dynamic system of variables to generate custom targets as a designer was impossible. The task of energy optimization was handled by specialized engineering firms doing the modeling — a costly and external process. Small budget projects such as single-family and small multifamily projects could not take advantage of it. Even larger projects often took the prescriptive path to eliminate the cost of custom optimization. 

Today, the reliable and detailed accounting of emissions in the building sector is necessary on a per-building basis. Many cities have passed climate action plans with extremely specific emissions reduction targets to meet over the next few decades. The Phius standard now provides an easy-to-apply, cost-effective design, and certification methodology alongside accurate accounting of carbon emissions for any building in the building sector.

With some training, architects can now easily perform these calculations themselves and build it into their design workflows right from the beginning, making sure their design is on track from start to finish.

The framework for the Phius standard today was conceived in 2015, updated in 2018, and refined again in 2021. Many municipalities have leaned on and incentivized the Phius framework to meet their climate action plans. At the forefront was New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in the State of NY. They designed a proof-of-concept program early on called Buildings of Excellence. The agency now offers cost and performance data for representative groups of completed projects using varying techniques for low energy design and accounting.

C3RRO, a third-party consulting firm under the leadership of Florian Antretter, has graphed the NYSERDA cost and measured performance data for various approaches and graciously made it available to Phius for publication. The results are proving the concept. 

Graph

As envisioned, the Phius Standard, design, and certification methodology has led to projects that not only perform the best, but are also constructed at minimal additional upfront cost. (PHI projects that use a single target for heating and cooling limits in all climates also perform reasonably well but are more expensive to build).

The new comprehensive guidebook explaining the Phius Standard design and certification methodology is now available here.

We are well on our way to (Phius) ZERO emissions!