Category Archives: Green Building

Energy Efficiency Programs Can Help Users’ Health

Many articles in this series show how building design can influence energy usage. Characteristics can be built in to save energy usage and cost, independent of behavior. These same energy efficiency strategies can also influence the health of those that spend time in the building, whether residents or workers who spend 40 hours per week there. A recent article from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy compiles recent evidence behind this conclusion. https://aceee.org/research-report/h1901

A poorly-sealed building envelope not only allows conditioned air, which required energy to be expended (electricity or fuel combustion), to leave, but also allows pests, moisture, and air pollution to enter interior spaces, raising the exposure of users to allergens, mold, and disease. Leaky windows and poor insulation can lead to drafts and extreme temperatures, triggering asthma attacks and leading to other respiratory illnesses. Inefficient appliances can affect air quality through incomplete combustion or improper venting. Together, these conditions contribute to increased rates of cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, heart disease, and stroke in the US, disproportionately affecting low-income people.

Energy efficiency programs can make homes healthier and save lives, while directly benefiting families financially. The problem is that energy efficiency upgrades require upfront costs to correct a condition or procure a new or better technology, upfront capital that poorer families (or companies) do not have.

The link between energy efficiency and public health is not recognized as energy efficiency programs have historically been implemented either by energy utility companies or government agencies focused on energy management; there has been no or little contribution from public health institutions. It is recommended that research be done to identify energy program elements that would also have the greatest impact on public health and data collection of collateral public health effects in buildings after undergoing energy upgrades. This bridging the gap may need the intervention of other government agencies, such as departments of health and housing. For example, elements of the national Affordable Care Act can use energy efficiency programs to help its goal of a healthier society (making fewer health insurance claims). If a given community is a focus of a weatherization or home energy efficiency program, data should be collected, not only concerning the amount of Btus of energy saved by the program, but also whether there has been a reduction in the number of emergency room visits for children experiencing asthma attacks, for example.

While the ACEEE study followed 23 potential frequently measured health indicators, most programs tracked 3 or fewer of them. Many of the energy programs did take steps to assess and communicate their health impacts, and, in some cases, bring in health care professionals to raise the effectiveness of the program. More needs to be done to show this cross-effectiveness of energy efficiency and health.

CCES has the experts to help you assess not only the cost savings of a potential energy efficiency program, but the potential health benefits, as well. We can help you design a program to measure and heighten beneficial health effects as your reduce energy usage, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Cost Effective Start For A Green Cleaning Campaign

More and more building owners and managers are recognizing that a “green”, sustainable building is not only the “right thing to do”, but also ultimately financially prudent. However, some decision makers balk at the high administrative and other costs of becoming formally LEED certified and want to implement beneficial changes quickly for the least upfront cost, even if it means they don’t get formal recognition.

One area that can be very effective in “greening” one’s building is “green” cleaning, typically focused on reducing the amount and toxicity of chemicals, equipment and procedures used to clean facilities. However, an effective “green” cleaning program can be achieved without overly considering cleaning chemicals, for example. An effective way of keeping buildings clean is to prevent dirt and microbes from entering in the first place. Studies have shown that one of the greatest sources of microbes, soil, chemicals, and other contaminants that enter a building and can get into the ventilation system is from the shoes and boots of users entering. Walk-off mats can remove much such dirt quite effectively at a low cost.

Studies have concluded that coliforms was detected on 96% of shoes tested, and, therefore, can easily enter and spread in a building. Transfer efficiency of bacteria from shoe bottoms to clean tiles inside a building ranged from 90 to 99%. It was also found that 1,000 people walking into a building over 20 days can track in up to 24 lbs of soil if no mats are in place.

When an effective matting system is installed, the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA) estimates that as much as 70 – 80% of these contaminants can be stopped from entering a facility, causing users to be healthier and reducing cleaning requirements, which itself, saves the facility labor and chemical costs and reduces building impacts on the environment.

The USEPA’s Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools program recommends that mats be installed at all key school entries, as both an effective and a cost-effective action.

Not all types of mats are as effective at source control. Look for high-performance mats which do the best job of capturing soil matter. Look for mats with the following:

 Pile: Made using higher quality fibers and have a deeper, thicker pile, allowing them to more effectively capture and trap soil particles.

 Backing: Using a higher-grade rubber backing designed to be longer lasting, resist curling, and cracking. They hold up better under different conditions.

 Construction: Many are “bi-level,” allowing soils and moisture to be trapped below its surface so this is not transferred from the mat onto other’s shoes.

 Warranty: Because they are built using higher quality materials, high-performance mats last longer and have longer warranties, usually 1-6 years.

Another consideration is size. Studies indicate that for matting to be truly effective, at least 15 feet should be installed; it could be inside and/or outside the building.

CCES has the experts to help your building assess and meet LEED “green” building standards. If, instead, you wish to implement simple, effective steps for your buildings to be more “green” and healthier for all, we can help there, too, cost-effectively and with minimal disruptions and impacts. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.