NASA Net Zero Energy

Buildings Roadmap
Shanti Pless, Jennifer Scheib, Paul Torcellini,
Bob Hendron, and Michelle Slovensky

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Technical Report
NREL/TP-5500-60838
October 2014

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

 NASA Net Zero Energy
Buildings Roadmap
Shanti Pless, Jennifer Scheib, Paul Torcellini,
Bob Hendron, and Michelle Slovensky
Prepared under Task No. WFT7.1000

Final Report prepared for NASA

Interagency Agreement # IAG-13-01895

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report

15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5500-60838
Golden, CO 80401 October 2014
303-275-3000 www.nrel.gov
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308
 NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL
16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

 Executive Summary
To prepare for the time-phased net zero energy buildings (NZEBs) requirement for new federal
buildings starting in 2020, set forth in Executive Order (EO) 13514, NASA requested that the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) develop a roadmap for NASAs compliance.
NASA detailed a Statement of Work that requested information on strategic, organizational, and
tactical aspects of net zero energy buildings.
This roadmap presents a high-level approach to NZEB planning, design, construction, and
operations, based on NRELs firsthand experience procuring NZEBs, and based on NREL and
other industry research on NZEB feasibility.
The strategic approach to NZEBs starts with an interpretation of the EO language relating to
NZEBs. Specifically, this roadmap defines an NZEB acquisition process as one that first sets an
aggressive energy use intensity goal for the building in project planning. It then meets the reduced
demand goal through energy efficiency approaches and technologies. Lastly, it adds renewable
energy in a prioritized manner, using building-associated, emission-free sources first, to offset the
annual conventional energy use required at the building. The NZEB process extends through the
life of the building, requiring a balance of energy use and production in each fiscal year.
The roadmap continues by identifying the most important organizational changes that will have
to take place at NASA for the agency to successfully adopt the NZEB process: (1) identify or
create energy performance assurance capability to act as the conduit for information and critical
eye for NZEB topics within the agency and during the course of individual projects; and (2)
effect culture change at the building level, which includes engaging occupants and facility staff
to take ownership of the skills required to achieve an NZEB goal.
The organizational and tactical approaches to NZEBs as presented in this roadmap are intertwined:
the organizational approach categorizes the unique elements of NZEB construction that are
required in every NZEB; the tactical approach lists all specific actions and associated metrics that
make up the organizational categories. It is unlikely that any project will use all tactics. Combined,
the organizational and tactical sections of the roadmap present a high-level how-to approach to
NZEBs, focused at the project level. Key attributes of the approach are that it:
Starts from NASAs current efforts in high performance building design and
construction, and extends from the trajectory of current federal building performance
requirements.
Addresses EO 13514 NZEB language as a building-by-building goal, which requires
project teams to overcome barriers but also allows ownership of the benefits.
Identifies a set of 57 tactics (or skills) that NASA will need if it is to achieve the NZEB
requirement.
Presents a pathway for NASA facilities staff to become proficient or experts (trains
others) in one or a handful of high performance building systems.
Proposes an approach for selecting tactics and a timeline for vetting all tactics, resulting
in NASA standard NZEB planning, design, construction, and operation by 2030.
The roadmap concludes by identifying the risks that could prevent NASA from becoming
proficient in NZEB new construction by 2030 and prioritizes the steps for implementing the
roadmap.

iii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Acronyms
CP Capstone proficiency
DBIA Design Build Institute of America
EO Executive Order
EUI Energy use intensity
GSHP Ground source heat pump
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MEL Miscellaneous electric load
NBI New Buildings Institute
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NZEB Net zero energy building
NZER Net zero energy ready
O&M Operations and maintenance
OP Organizational proficiency
PER Preliminary Engineering Report
POE Post Occupancy Evaluation
PPL Plug and process load
PV Photovoltaic
RE Renewable energy
REC Renewable energy certificates
RFP Request for Proposals
SHW Solar hot water
SSPP Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan
T&D Transmission and distribution
TLCC Total life cycle cost
USGBC US Green Building Council

iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................. 1
2 Strategic Approach .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Value of Net Zero Energy Buildings............................................................................................. 3
2.2 Application of Executive Order 13514 ......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Strategic Metrics To Verify Success ........................................................................................... 15
2.4 Culture Change............................................................................................................................ 18
3 Organizational Level Considerations ............................................................................................... 22
3.1 Capstone and Organizational Proficiency Categories ................................................................. 22
3.2 Organizational Metrics ................................................................................................................ 24
3.3 Project-Specific Metrics .............................................................................................................. 26
4 Tactical Level Considerations ........................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Tactical Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Application of Tactics to Achieve Organizational Proficiency ................................................... 48
5 Risks .................................................................................................................................................... 51
References ................................................................................................................................................. 52

v
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Energy-related goals in the NASA 2013 SSPP ......................................................................... 18
Figure 3-1 Strategic and organizational metric overlay .............................................................................. 26
Figure 3-2 NZER in context of optimal life cycle cost curve ..................................................................... 27
Figure 4-1 Time-phased approach to demonstrating organizational proficiency using individual tactics.. 49

List of Tables
Table 2-1 NZEB Example Comparison, Designed for Net Zero Site Energy ............................................ 15
Table 2-2 Strategic-Level Metrics Leading to NZEBs by 2030 ................................................................. 17
Table 3-1 Capstone and Organizational Proficiency Categories ................................................................ 23
Table 3-2 Example Time-Phased Approach To Developing Organizational Proficiencies ........................ 24
Table 3-3 Organizational-Level Metric Leading to NZEBs by 2030 ......................................................... 25
Table 3-4 Reference EUI Targets by Climate and Building Type .............................................................. 28
Table 3-5 Common Metrics Used in Various Building Space Categories .................................................. 29
Table 4-1 Tactics for CP1 (Institutionalize NASA NZEB Workflow) ....................................................... 31
Table 4-2 Tactics for OP1 (Establish NZEB Acquisition Process) ............................................................ 33
Table 4-3 Tactics for OP2 (Establish Energy Efficiency System Best Practices) ...................................... 37
Table 4-4 Tactics for OP3 (Establish RE System Integration Process) ...................................................... 42
Table 4-5 Tactics for OP4 (Establish NZEB Operations Plan)................................................................... 44
Table 4-6 Tactics for CP2 (Achieve NZE) ................................................................................................. 47

vi
1 Introduction and Background
Beginning in 2020, all new federal buildings must be designed to achieve net zero energy
building (NZEB) performance by 2030, in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13514, titled
Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. NASA is
supportive of this target, and has decided to establish short-, medium-, and long-term objectives
that will ultimately enable the agency to achieve the requirements. NASA has established several
high-level targets in its Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP), and has demonstrated
a commitment to high performance buildings through a series of demonstration projects.
However, an integrated plan tailored to NASAs needs, with clear objectives, definitions, roles,
and timetables, has not yet been established by NASA leadership and embraced by all Centers
and communities of practice.

As part of an ongoing collaboration between NASA and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), NASA asked NREL to assist with this process by developing a multitiered
roadmap that would leverage NRELs experience overcoming technical and market barriers to
net zero energy buildings (NZEBs) through recent campus projects and energy-efficient
buildings research, and adapt that experience to NASAs specific challenges. The objectives are
to:

Establish a clear interpretation of EO 13514 sections that are related to the federal
NZEBs strategic goal that NASA can adopt and apply.
Identify a series of time-phased incremental organizational objectives and proficiencies
that are necessary to achieve the strategic goal.
Describe specific tactics that NASA should implement in pursuing the organizational
objectives.
NASA intends to use the roadmap to inform the NASA Construction of Facilities 5-year plan
decision-making process, and to share with other federal agencies that are developing their own
long-term plans to meet the EO 13514 requirements. The roadmap draws from NASA current
resources, which include:

The 2013 Introduction to Sustainable Facilities presentations

The 2013 Construction of Facilities Management presentations
Site-specific climate risk handouts and workshop summaries
The 2012 Energy Management Report summary
Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) reports
The 2010 Renewable Energy Assessment report.
The roadmap builds on NASAs current sustainable building procurement processes so the
organizational and tactical pieces of the roadmap can begin at current practice. To engage a
variety of NASA communities of practice such as facilities engineering, operations and
maintenance (O&M), real property/master planning, environmental, energy management, and
procurement, NREL:

1
 Led an after-action review video- and teleconference with a variety of NASA Centers and
communities of practice during a site visit to Kennedy Space Center to set a baseline for
current building practice.
Presented the initial roadmap outline and held a question-and-answer session at the face-
to-face Energy Efficiency Panel meeting.
Visited Ames Research Center during the POE, to extract lessons learned from a recent
NASA high performance building.
Presented a draft of the roadmap via video- and teleconference to a variety of Centers and
communities of practice and held a subsequent formal NASA review period.
Considered the needs, recommendations, and concerns expressed by the communities of
practice.

2
2 Strategic Approach
The strategic approach to NZEBs recommended for NASA is rooted in an interpretation of the
relevant requirements of EO 13514, titled Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance, and application of these requirements to NASAs building portfolio
and new construction planned over the next decade and beyond. To give a premise for the NZEB
interpretation, the general policy language is first presented. As stated, the purpose of EO 13514
is to:

establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the Federal Government

and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for Federal agencies
(Preamble)
Recommended Interpretation: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is an overarching goal of
EO 13514. The integrated strategy referenced is detailed as follows:
Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water
resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management; eliminate waste,
recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for
sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, and
services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance sustainable
buildings in sustainable locations; strengthen the vitality and livability of the
communities in which Federal facilities are located; and inform Federal employees about
and involve them in the achievement of these goals. (Section 1. Policy.)
Recommended Interpretation: The overarching goal given in the preamble will be achieved by
implementing an array of strategies. Each strategy given in the EO Policy section can be mapped
to a directive in the Goals section. These strategies are intertwined in their contribution to
meeting the goal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction; thus, several directives in EO 13514 are
cited in this roadmap. The focus of this roadmap, though, is on section (g)(i), which calls for
NZEB design and operation of new buildings, and maps to, design, construct, maintain, and
operate high performance sustainable buildings in the previous citation. The term buildings
applies to NASA real property asset class 540 Buildings, but does not apply to NASA real
property asset class 515 Other Structures & Facilities. However, projects for new structures
could benefit from incorporating elements of NZEB practices, and certain structures may present
opportunities for net zero or even net positive energy operation, such as vehicle parking
structures.

2.1 Value of Net Zero Energy Buildings

Before interpreting the high performance building- and NZEB-specific requirements of EO
13514, this section discusses the value of the NZEB goal. NZEBs, and the construction and
O&M thereof, can provide value to many stakeholders within the NASA family and to society as
a whole. Some of these benefits will be realized directly through the performance of buildings;
others will result from the knowledge, experience, and technical advances associated with
NASAs leadership in constructing innovative high performance buildings.

3
2.1.1 Benefits to NASA
The most obvious direct benefit for NASA to invest in NZEBs will be dramatically reducedor
even zeroutility costs for a new building. If NZEBs can be achieved cost effectively,
achievement of the 100% NZEB goal for new buildings (and not required but suggested
implementation of some of the NZEB approaches in major renovations) will also have a positive
effect on overall expenditures for the agency, freeing up funds for activities that are more
directly related to the core mission.

2.1.1.1 Cost Savings Potential and Approach

Recent research has demonstrated that NZEBs can be cost effective when planned, managed, and
verified using innovative, performance-based procurement approach and integrated design. For
example, the NREL Research Support Facility, a large office building in Golden, Colorado, was
procured using a typical construction budget for the area. Although limited data are available for
NZEB construction costs, a recent study by the New Buildings Institute (NBI 2012) presents:

A limited set of case studies suggesting that NZEBs can be procured with a 0%10%
premium on typical construction costs.
Energy and cost modeling results showing the potential for NZEB payback periods of
1215 years.
Based on NRELs experience and results from the NBI case studies, the lower bounds of initial
capital cost premium are possible when a project team:

Selects energy efficiency as a project priority, trading off cost investment in architectural
elements that do not impact or assist in energy performance.
Integrates simple and passive efficiency solutions, with an emphasis on envelope
optimization.
Downsizes or eliminates heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment
based on passive envelope design.
Maximizes the use of modular and repeatable design solutions.
Specifies readily available and tested technology and focuses on the implementation
details.
Implements experimental solutions only when necessary for NZEBs and incorporates the
appropriate system experts onto the project team.
Incorporates a continuous value engineering process as part of the integrated design effort
that allows cost tradeoffs between design disciplines.
Engages experienced key subcontractors early in the design process.
Evaluates and prepares for soft costs such as added time to review energy modeling
reports and research the operation of new systems; over time, as NASA becomes
proficient in NZEB acquisition and operation, the added soft costs will be reduced.
Anecdotally, operating costs can be reduced when simple and passive solutions are used.
Examples such as high thermal mass, aggressive insulation, reduced lighting power density, and
overhangs controlling solar load have low maintenance costs, long life cycles, and high

4
probability of performing as expected. Use of such systems can reduce O&M costs, leading to
potentially significant cumulative cost savings over a 40-year life cycle cost analysis period
(specified by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act as modified by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Section 441), given the simple payback period shown
possible by the NBI case studies.

2.1.1.2 Additional Benefits

The potential for cost-effective NZEBs is real, but success will require a rigorous decision-
making process for each new project, as well as internal research, tracking, and communicating
of each attempt. Once successful, though, the energy cost savings provided through reduced
energy are likely to be complemented by valuable nonenergy benefits. The following benefits
can be difficult or impossible to quantify monetarily, and are therefore often omitted from
financial analysis:

Fewer work orders generated by occupant comfort complaints, and lower absentee rate
and staff turnover, assuming use of energy efficiency approaches that engage occupants
by allowing them to control systems such as electric lighting and natural ventilation as
needed
Less overtime for maintenance staff, reduced backlog of preventive and reactive
maintenance items, assuming simple and passive energy efficiency systems are used
Greater thermal comfort, improved indoor air quality, and better lighting quality,
assuming passive design solutions give all occupants access to glare-free daylight, natural
ventilation, and adequately zoned thermal systems
Flexibility to accommodate future changes to building occupancy and activities,
assuming lighting and HVAC systems are zoned to account for variable occupancy so
that systems can be set back or shut down when unoccupied
Public relations value for improved sustainability
Reduced environmental impact of operations, specifically greenhouse gas emissions,
which can lead to compliance with: (1) the EO 13514 emission reduction requirement
discussed in Section 2.2.1.1 and (2) local cap and trade or other environmental attribute
programs
Potential to contribute toward Center energy security and resiliency improvements.
NASAs commitment to NZEBs will also help the agency to:

Develop and demonstrate innovative project delivery approaches that other agencies or
the private sector can adopt.
Advance energy efficiency and distributed renewable energy (RE) technologies.
Improve methods for integrated design.
Reduce the costs of energy-efficient products and equipment as demand exceeds a
threshold level for manufacturing efficiency and competition increases.
Train leaders who can motivate other federal agencies and the private sector to take
action.

5
2.1.2 Benefits to Society
In line with EO 13514, national efforts to increase the feasibility and cost effectiveness of
NZEBs are driven by several important societal benefits associated with reduced energy use:
Reduced dependence on finite fossil fuels
Greater energy independence
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change
Improved livability in the surrounding community
Reduced pollution from coal-burning power plants
Reduced need for expensive nuclear power plants, with associated nuclear waste disposal
challenges
Job creation.
2.2 Application of Executive Order 13514
Moving forward from the value proposition of NZEBs inherent in EO 13514 and supported by
industry research, the following sections cite relevant EO 13514 language. First, relevant goals in
the EO 13514 are interpreted and connected to NZEB concepts and then the specific NZEB
definitions are discussed.

2.2.1 Net Zero Energy Building Supporting Goals in EO 13514

The following subsections cite EO 13514 goals that relate to NZEB acquisition, design, and
operations.

2.2.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The first specific goal of EO 13514 is to:

establish and report to the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ
Chair) and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) a
percentage reduction target for agency-wide reductions of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas
emissions in absolute terms by fiscal year 2020, relative to a fiscal year 2008 baseline of
the agency's scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions. In establishing the target, the
agency head shall consider reductions associated with: (i) reducing energy intensity in
agency buildings; (ii) increasing agency use of renewable energy and implementing
renewable energy generation projects on agency property (Sec. 2. Goals for
Agencies. (a))
Recommended Interpretation: NASA was required to set targets by January 2010 for reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions. Emphasis was added to building energy use as a path toward the
greenhouse gas emission reduction target by requiring an associated energy intensity reduction
sub target. EO 13514 did not augment agency-level energy intensity reduction requirements
established in the National Energy Conservation Policy Act as modified by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. The current energy intensity targets are relative to a
2003 baseline and ratchet down each year, ending in a 30% reduction in 2015. The EO 13514
greenhouse gas reduction target should be met by September 2020. NASA should continue the
energy intensity reduction trajectory between 2015 and 2020, aligning with NZEB performance,
which is likely to be specified in future federal guidance. The roadmap, though, does not focus
6
on agency-level energy intensity goals; rather, it focuses on building-level, demand-side energy
use intensity (EUI) goals.

2.2.1.2 Net Zero Energy Buildings

The NZEB directive of EO 13514 is to:

implement high performance sustainable Federal building design, construction,

operation and management, maintenance, and deconstruction including by: (i) beginning
in 2020 and thereafter, ensuring that all new Federal buildings that enter the planning
process are designed to achieve zero-net-energy by 2030 (Sec. 2. Goals for Agencies.
(g)(i))
Recommended Interpretation: This section requires that all new NASA buildings (federal new
construction) be designed to reach net zero energy starting in 2020. It does not necessarily
require that all new NASA buildings constructed after 2020 be an NZEB immediately. Buildings
in the planning, design, or construction phase before 2020 appear to be exempt. Even for
buildings entering the planning process after 2020, RE sources can be added over time,
ultimately reaching net zero energy by 2030, although NASA should attempt to complete NZEB
projects as soon as possible, as suggested by the tactic selection plan in Table 3-3. More
importantly, we recommend that this section be interpreted as requiring net zero energy to be met
at the individual building level. The language does not clearly require that buildings achieve net
zero energy based on metering or utility bills but we recommend that NASA embrace NZEBs as
an objective target demonstrated by actual performance after the building is occupied, and not
simply as a design goal. Furthermore, we recommend that NASA apply the tactics given in the
roadmap to major renovation projects to increase the rate at which NZEB processes and skill sets
are built up within the agency, and to realize the stated potential benefits more broadly across the
Centers.

2.2.1.3 Sustainable Building Design

The remaining goal citations in this section relate to general sustainability, focused on the built
environment.

(ii) ensuring that all new construction, major renovation, or repair and alteration of
Federal buildings complies with the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High
Performance and Sustainable Buildings (Guiding Principles); (iii) ensuring that at least
15 percent of the agency's existing buildings (above 5,000 gross square feet) and building
leases (above 5,000 gross square feet) meet the Guiding Principles by fiscal year 2015
and that the agency makes annual progress toward 100-percent conformance with the
Guiding Principles for its building inventory (Sec. 2. Goals for Agencies. (g)(ii-iii))
Recommended Interpretation: The Guiding Principles currently apply to all NASA new
construction projects, requiring 30% less energy use relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007.
Furthermore, the energy efficiency design performance standards for new Federal commercial
buildings (10 CFR 433) require designs beginning July 9, 2014, meet ASHRAE 90.1-2010 and
achieve at least 30% better than ASHRAE 90.1-2010 if life-cycle cost-effective. This
requirement is independent of RE. For net zero energy ready (NZER) preparedness, NASA
should target 50% less energy use relative to an ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 baseline for all
buildings entering planning in 2020.

7
By the end of the fiscal year 2015, 15% of existing NASA buildings must also comply with the
Guiding Principles, which requires that major renovations must result in 20% energy savings
relative to the energy used by a specific building in 2003. Our interpretation of this requirement
is not that 15% of NASA buildings must be retrofit to 20% less energy use, but that other
elements of the Guiding Principles (e.g., water use, thermal comfort, daylighting) must be met in
15% of existing buildings. When a major renovation does occur, 20% energy savings is required.
For NZER preparedness, NASA should target 30% less energy relative to an ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 baseline for all major renovations and net zero energy when most major building
systems will be replaced including lighting, HVAC, roof, and windows. In fact, many of the net
zero energy tactics discussed later in this roadmap apply equally well to retrofit projects.
However, EUI targets and comprehensive best practices for achieving an NZEB in a retrofit
context are outside the scope of EO 13514 and this roadmap.

2.2.1.4 Sustainable Building Operations

managing existing building systems to reduce the consumption of energy, water, and
materials, and identifying alternatives to renovation that reduce existing assets deferred
maintenance costs (Sec. 2. Goals for Agencies. (g)(v))
Recommended Interpretation: Successful operation of a building is valued in retrofits as well as
new construction; tactics related to NZEB operation should be applied to retrofit scenarios even
if a less aggressive operation goal is set.

2.2.1.5 Sustainable Procurements

advance sustainable acquisition to ensure that 95 percent of new contract actions
including task and delivery orders, for products and servicesare energy-efficient
(Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) designated), water-
efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable (e.g., Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT) certified), non-ozone depleting, contain recycled content, or
are non-toxic or less-toxic alternatives, where such products and services meet agency
performance requirements; (i) promote electronics stewardship, in particular by: (i)
ensuring procurement preference for EPEAT-registered electronic products; (ii)
establishing and implementing policies to enable power management, duplex printing,
and other energy-efficient or environmentally preferable features on all eligible agency
electronic products; (iii) employing environmentally sound practices with respect to the
agency's disposition of all agency excess or surplus electronic products; (iv) ensuring the
procurement of Energy Star and FEMP designated electronic equipment; (v)
implementing best management practices for energy-efficient management of servers and
Federal data centers (Sec. 2. Goals for Agencies. (h))
Recommended Interpretation: This section mandates the purchase of energy-efficient plug and
process loads (PPLs) whenever they do not conflict with essential functionality for mission-
critical needs, and the application of sustainable operating practices for electrical equipment. The
procurement and operation elements of this language should be included in all NZEB project
specifications. Because net zero energy is an operational goal, the success of every project will
depend strongly on equipment procurement over time. Ongoing procurements will affect all
projects; thus, we recommend that NASA develop an agency-wide process for taking an initial
inventory of equipment in all new construction and major renovations, tracking procurements
and ensuring they meet the EO 13514 requirements, and developing a mitigation plan when

8
equipment is added instead of simply replacing old equipment. We also recommend that NASA
review current agency-level policy and adjust as needed to allow efficient use (i.e., low power
modes) of the procured equipment.

2.2.1.6 Sustainability Performance Reporting

develop, implement, and annually update an integrated Strategic Sustainability
Performance Plan that will prioritize agency actions based on lifecycle return on
investment. (Sec. 8.)
Recommended Interpretation: This section sets forth requirements for each agency to develop an
SSPP. The most recent update to the NASA SSPP was published in 2013, documenting progress
toward the following sustainability goals related to buildings:

30% reduction in average EUI by 2015 compared to a 2003 baseline value of 216
kBtu/ft2 (63 kWh/ft2)
RE generation equivalent to 7.5% of electricity use by 2013, as required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005
15% of all new and existing buildings, determined applicable, compliant with the
Guiding Principles by 2015.
All recommended goals in this roadmap are at least on par with these goals; some are more
aggressive. However, the focus is on pragmatic solutions that NASA can encourage in the near
term, and that are required for all projects in the long term, ultimately leading to compliance with
all statutory, executive order, and regulatory building energy requirements.

2.2.2 Net Zero Energy Building Definitions in EO 13514

There is considerable debate in the industry about the best definition of an NZEB. Although this
roadmap does not aim to settle the debate, a clear definition is necessary to establish quantitative
metrics that NASA will use to track progress toward program goals and demonstrate
achievement of those goals. Guided by the EO 13514 goals cited in Section 2.2.1, the following
subsections of the roadmap offer an interpretation of the EO 13514 NZEB definition: First, the
EO language is discussed directly and clarifying points are given. Second, definitions commonly
used in the building industry are presented. Third, an NZEB evaluation process is suggested as
an approach to meet the intent of the EO 13514 definition. Lastly, an example is given which
compares NZEB scenarios and their ability to meet the roadmap definition versus the other
industry definitions and other EO 13514 goals.
2.2.2.1 NASA Net Zero Energy Building Definition
EO 13514 defines an NZEB as:

a building that is designed, constructed, and operated to require a greatly reduced

quantity of energy to operate, meet the balance of energy needs from sources of energy
that do not produce greenhouse gases, and therefore result in no net emissions of
greenhouse gases and be economically viable. (Sec. 19. Definitions. (o))
Because there is some ambiguityand perhaps inconsistencyin this definition, a more specific
and practical definition is required. To preface the definition, we offer the following
interpretation:

9
 The first clause emphasizes energy efficiency and sets the energy use required by the
building in annual operation as the measurement of focus. The energy use measurement
is taken for all consumed utilities, including energy from central plants, after direct
demand reduction tactics are applied and before RE is applied.
The second clause states that the measurement should be met equally with
nongreenhouse-gas-producing sources. To be consistent with other elements of current
federal requirements such as Section 2 (a)(ii) of EO 13514, we interpret the second clause
to also require that the sources be renewable, excluding nuclear energy. In addition, we
interpret this clause to require the direct use or purchase of renewable energy to meet the
balance of needs (versus indirectly generating demand for renewable energy by
purchasing renewable energy certificates that represent environmental and other non-
energy attributes of the energy).
The third clause presentsbut does not requirethe intended outcome of offsetting
greenhouse gas emissions. This clause may imply that the RE sources used to balance the
energy needs include no net-emitting sources (e.g., biomass) versus zero emitting
sources (e.g., solar) alone.
This loose interpretation appears to be corroborated by the definition of RE given in EO 13514:

energy produced by solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave,
current, and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, or new hydroelectric
generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new capacity at
an existing hydroelectric project. (Sec. 19. Definitions. (j))
We recommend that the no net-emitting interpretation be accepted as an option but that it be
prioritized after zero emitting RE. NASA should align policy related to biomass use with
guidance such as the Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance Technical
Support Document (CEQ 2012). The current Technical Support Document states that EO 13514
greenhouse gas reporting requirements exclude emissions due to biomass combustion from
agency reduction targets because of the relatively short timescale that the associated carbon was
secured and the reabsorption once released into the atmosphere through combustion. Section 203
(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 should be used as a guide for acceptable biomass sources and
consideration should be given to the general sustainability and net emissions impact, such as
emissions during biofuel production, when selecting a source.

2.2.2.2 Net Zero Energy Building Pathways

To extend these interpretations, a NASA NZEB evaluation process is built on the definitions
developed by Torcellini et al. (2006), along with the classification grading system proposed by
Pless et al. (2010), with some adaptations to align with other elements of this roadmap. One
advantage of the system is that it provides substantial flexibility with respect to selecting RE
generation technologies, which is important for high-risk projects. According to this system, any
building can achieve NZEB status, regardless of building type, climate, geometry, or site
constraints. If a buildings characteristic energy use (based on building type or use) is too high or
its site too restricted to achieve NZEB design within the site boundary, the options still allow for
resources external to the site to be used to offset the remainder of site energy use. Importantly,
though, preference is given first to energy efficiency, then to footprint-tied, zero-emitting
renewables, and then to no net-emitting and spatially disconnected sources as a last priority.

10
2.2.2.2.1 General Net Zero Energy Building Classifications
An NZEB can be defined in several ways, depending on the boundary and the metric. Four
commonly used accounting methods are net zero site energy, net zero source energy, net zero
energy costs, and net zero energy emissions. Each definition uses the grid for net-use accounting
and has different applicable RE sources. Net zero site energy is the most intuitive definition, and
is the one we recommend for NASAs NZEB program.

Net Zero Site Energy (recommended for NASA): A site NZEB produces (or purchases)
at least as much RE as conventional energy it uses in a year, when accounted for at the
site. RE does not necessarily have to be generated onsite, but transmission and
distribution (T&D) losses should be included in the calculation of net energy use. This
definition aligns with the EO 13514 language that requires the project to meet the
balance of energy needs of the building. It also emphasizes the designed, constructed,
and operated elements of the requirement by directly measuring building performance,
and deemphasizes the complexity that can be added to the NZEB decision-making
process when conversions such as changing national average site-to-source multipliers
are used.
Net Zero Source Energy: A source NZEB produces (or purchases) at least as much RE as
conventional energy it uses in a year, when accounted for at the source. Source energy
refers to the primary energy used to extract, process, generate, and deliver the energy to
the site. To calculate a buildings total source energy, imported and exported energy is
multiplied by the appropriate site-to-source conversion multipliers based on the utilitys
source energy type.
Net Zero Emissions: A net zero emissions building produces (or purchases) enough zero-
emitting RE to offset emissions from all energy used in the building annually. Carbon,
nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides are common emissions that NZEBs offset. To calculate
a buildings total emissions, imported and exported energy is multiplied by the
appropriate emission multipliers based on the utilitys emissions and onsite generation
emissions (if there are any). In a strict sense, a net zero emission goal cannot be met with
no net-emitting sources.
Net Zero Energy Costs: In a cost NZEB, the amount of money the utility pays the
building owner for the RE the building exports to the grid is at least equal to the amount
the owner pays the utility for the energy services and energy used over the year. The
utility rate structure must be well understood and stable for this definition to be
meaningful. This definition is not considered in the roadmap beyond this explanation
because the roadmap tactics related to NZEB acquisition will help drive a cost-effective
outcome.
2.2.2.2.2 NASA Net Zero Energy Building Evaluation Process
A series of steps based on Pless and Torcellini (2010) should be followed for all projects to
encourage project teams to first use all possible cost-effective energy efficiency solutions, and
then use RE sources and technologies that are located on the building. Once all possible cost-
effective efficiency and onsite RE technologies have been fully exploited, offsite options should
be explored if necessary. Each step should be performed in order and to the extent possible, only
skipping steps when high loads, site constraints, and life cycle analysis results favor an offsite
option. Criteria for meeting each RE approach are given in the step description. The criteria are

11
based on results from an NREL analysis on NZEB feasibility (Griffith 2007) and guidance given
in the Living Building Challenge Net Zero Energy Building Certification program. The process
of moving through the steps ends when 100% of annual site energy use can be met by RE
sources. This advantage of a process-based NZEB definition is that the system allows all* NASA
building types to meet the goal using one or more of the alternative methods of accounting for
RE generation.

Step 1: Reduce building energy use through demand reduction, energy efficiency, and
demand-side RE building technologies (such as ground source heat pumps [GSHPs] or
passive solar heating). A well-optimized NZEB should include such solutions to the point
where the supply-side RE technologies become the next most cost-effective measure, which
we define as best-in-class energy efficiency. This step is a prerequisite because
maximizing energy efficiency is a fundamental quality of NZEBs.
Step 2: Maximize the use of zero-emitting RE sources within the building footprint and
connected to the buildings electrical or hot/chilled water distribution system. Footprint-
associated RE sources are preferable to non-footprint sources because the availability of the
collection area can be guaranteed over the life of the building, preventing future challenges
balancing NZEB goals and land use. However, the cost of building-mounted RE could be
prohibitive because of negative interactions with the building structure or interference with
building functionality, which would require a heavier reliance on Step 3. Regardless,
footprint-associated RE should contribute a minimum of 20% of the RE requirement.
Step 3: Maximize the use of zero-emitting RE sources at the building site and connected to
the buildings electrical or hot/chilled water distribution system. This step addresses RE
generated on the building site when it cannot be located within the building footprint or
mounted on the building. The site is typically defined as the property boundary; however,
sites should represent a meaningful boundary that is functionally part of the building. LEED
v4 (USGBC 2013) offers guidance on site boundary definitions. Onsite RE sources are
preferable to offsite sources because they align with NASA site-based energy security and
reliability objectives. Typical onsite RE approaches include parking lot photovoltaic (PV)
systems mounted to shading structures, tower-based wind turbines mounted in a neighboring
field, and ground-mounted solar hot water (SHW) systems connected into the buildings hot
water distribution system.
*At this step, 100% of the RE needs should be met for low-load buildings such as offices and
support buildings. High-load buildings such as laboratories and cafeterias may use the
following steps to meet the NZEB goal. Step 4 should be considered only in the scenarios
mentioned when multiple benefits can be shown (e.g., a stable supply of renewable fuel
exists locally and use of combined heat and power meets process load demands), and when
an agency-level review is performed with respect to current federal requirements for agency
greenhouse gas reduction and use of renewable fuel. In addition, if Step 4 is used, the tactical
consideration regarding building-related greenhouse gas reduction must be used. Like Step 4,
Step 5 should be considered only in the scenarios mentioned when multiple benefits can be
shown (e.g., better wind or solar resource exists offsite and intermittent use of high
equipment loads used for research does not allow for a cost-effective solution onsite). At a
minimum, 20% of RE needs should be met before moving to Step 4 or Step 5 by all new
buildings.

12
Step 4: Use RE sources that may be available offsite to generate energy onsite that can be
connected directly to the buildings electrical, space heating, or hot/chilled water distribution
system. An example of this would be wood chips imported to heat a building. Other offsite
renewables covered under this approach include waste vegetable oil, biodiesel, and ethanol.
Understanding and documenting the life cycle emissions and carbon impacts of biofuels are
important steps in including these types of renewables in NZEB projects. To guide this
analysis and compare the offsite options to EO 13514 GHG reduction requirements, an
agency-level sustainability and/or energy representative, such as a representative from the
Environmental Management Division, should be directly engaged in the project preplanning
and design. This connection between the defined site NZEB goal and the agency-level
greenhouse gas emission is addressed at the tactical level.
If offsite RE sources are used to generate energy onsite, the non-renewable energy needed to
process the fuel at the renewable central plant should be accounted for in the building energy
consumption.
Step 5: Invest in or purchase newly installed (per current federal guidance) offsite RE.
Preference should be given to options in which NASA can directly invest and therefore take
ownership of all or part of the system. Our suggested prioritization of the offsite options is to:
1. Use NASA-financed or NASA-owned power production. For example, a Center could
establish strict efficiency goals and negotiate with its power provider to install offsite
dedicated wind turbines or PV panels at a local or regional offsite location with better
solar or wind resource. In this approach, NASA might finance or own the hardware
(or a portion of the system) and receive credit for the power. Preference should be
given to zero-emitting sources.
2. Purchase green power that is regionally produced. For example, a Center could
purchase green power through a third-party community choice aggregation or utility
green pricing program. Purchased green power must be derived from zero-emitting
sources to ensure that the fuel mix associated with the buildings energy use is
known. This means that purchasing biomass-derived power through a green power
provider to offset natural gas use does not achieve an NZEB. Also, the purchase of
RECs that are disaggregated from the purchase of power is not a pathway to an
NZEB in the roadmap.
To guide the process of selecting the most appropriate offsite option, an agency-level
sustainability and/or energy representative should be directly engaged in project preplanning
and design, and the solution approved by NASA headquarters early in the design phase.
Considerations to help guide the evaluation of offsite options include:
RE options should be an integral part of planning and design, encouraging a focus on
energy efficiency
NASA should be directly invested in the RE sources when possible to increase the
likelihood of consistent source availability over the life of the building
RE production should be directly measured by or reported to NASA when possible so
that the actual annual production can be compared to the building energy use, and so that
daily production profiles can be tracked.

13
In all steps, care should be taken to either retire, retain, or purchase equivalent RECs, in
accordance with federal guidance, as part of the design process in an attempt to comply with the
EO 13514 NZEB definition intent of aiding in greenhouse gas reduction when meeting the
balance of energy needs for a new building.

The site NZEB goal and steps for achieving the goal attempt to balance energy source reliability,
cost, and greenhouse gas reductions, and ultimately meet the EO 13514 goal of all new
construction achieving net zero energy. Reliability is addressed by the footprint, onsite, and then
offsite prioritization. Cost is addressed by allowing all steps to be used when life-cycle-cost
justified. Emissions are addressed in two ways: inherently through the use of the net zero site
energy definition selection, which often results in net zero emissions due to direct energy used,
and by engaging agency-level support for life cycle analysis of RE options if Step 4 is used.
Additional NASA building-related greenhouse gas emissions that are not accounted for by the
NZEB definition options are:

Fugitive emissions from building equipment (tracked according to EO 13514

requirements)
Production, transportation, construction, demolition, and recycling of building materials
While not considered directly though the EO 13514 NZEB requirement or NASA NZEB
roadmap, these emissions should be reduced to the extent possible on each project.

2.2.2.2.3 NASA Net Zero Energy Building Evaluation Process Example

Table 2-1 gives example NZEB scenarios for which RE is sized to meet site energy use after
energy efficiency solutions are applied. The impact to source energy and greenhouse gas
emissions is compared qualitatively.
Although a building may be designed according to the process definition to be an NZEB, it may
not actually achieve net zero energy in operation every year. For example, a well-operating
building may fall short of the NZEB operation goal during abnormal weather years that have
above-average heating and cooling loads, with below-average solar and wind resources. Net zero
energy is therefore an operational target that requires continuous improvement to sustain.
(Improper commissioning, poor maintenance practices, or incorrect operation of a building can
also undermine the design intent, and prevent it from achieving net zero energy in a particular
year. These variables, though, are controlled for in the NZEB operational tactics and should not
be accepted as reasons for not achieving net zero energy.) The net energy use of each building
should be measured, reviewed, and tracked each year with submetering.

14
 Table 2-1 NZEB Example Comparison, Designed for Net Zero Site Energy

Example tactics: (unit Example 1, office, mild climate, Example 2, laboratory, cold climate,
energy)* adjacent parking lot constrained site, central plant

Step 1, energy efficiency Daylighting, natural ventilation, etc. Daylighting, solar hot water, etc.

Utility electricity and natural

Conventional source Utility electricity: (1) (3)
gas:

Step 2, footprint RE Roof-mounted PV: (-0.5) Roof-mounted PV: (-1)

Step 3, site RE Parking lot canopy PV: (-0.5) N/A -

Step 4, offsite RE, onsite Standalone combined heat and

N/A - (-2)
generation power fed by renewable fuel:

Step 5, offsite RE,

N/A - N/A -
purchased

Net zero site energy Yes, RE sized for whole building energy
use (electricity and natural gas),
Yes, RE sized for whole building
accounting for the non-renewable energy
energy use (electricity)
used in the central plant attributable to the
building

Net zero source energy Yes No

Net zero emissions Yes No

Discussion The most straightforward scenario If a project team uses Step 4, no net-
is when the energy carrier for emitting sources become an option. In this
demand and supply is the same, scenario, net zero site energy might not
and when the RE is a zero-emitting imply net zero source energy or emissions.
source. In this scenario, if the The differential would result from the
building meets net zero site energy dissimilar fuel production energy use and
in a fiscal year then it will also combustion emission mix, respectively. In
meet net zero source energy and this scenario, the source energy use and
emissions in the same year. emissions might be greatly reduced relative
to a conventional energy scenario but an
accounting balance might not be achieved.
*These unit energy values are presented as an accounting exercise and are not tied to real case studies or
simulation. The unit energy values in the second row indicate the annual energy needed after energy
efficiency and demand reduction measures are applied. The negative values indicate renewable energy use
(either by the building directly or within the utility region of the building).

2.3 Strategic Metrics To Verify Success

The NZEB goal for an individual building is achieved when allowable RE sources (in
accordance with Steps 15 in Section 2.2.2.2.2) generate more energy than the building
consumes in a fiscal year. Project teams, guided by an energy performance assurance process,
should be tasked to meet this criterion in a 2-year window after building turnover, and to sustain

15
net zero energy every year thereafter through recommissioning, maintenance, and ongoing
enhancements to operational practices as building functions and occupancy levels change over
time. Key members of the project team should be retained on an incentive basis during the first
two years of operation to help the building operators and others assisting with energy
performance assurance improve building performance based on lessons learned within the first
year; this formal collaboration will increase the likelihood that NZEBs will be achieved in the
first formal reporting year, which is suggested to be the second year after turnover (unless further
federal guidance is issued on reporting requirements).

Ultimately, the EO 13514 NZEB requirements should be verified at the building level and the
annual success of each building should be rolled up for agency reporting as the percent of NASA
new construction achieving the NZEB goal. Shown in Table 2-2, this metric of building-by-
building progress should be reported as a percent of new construction that begins in 2020 or
later. For NASA, the official start date for a project is recommended to be when a Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER) is started. The strategic-level metric is disaggregated for NZEB
design and operations, and over time periods leading to the 2020 NZEB design goal and 2030
NZEB operations goal of EO 13514. The NZEB operations metric displaces the design metric in
2030 since it is assumed that all new construction must be designed for NZEB according to the
roadmap tactics to achieve NZEB operations. The 2025 marker year is listed for reference to
other organizational-level metrics given in the roadmap. The metrics should be evaluated
annually.

In the long term, starting in 2030, the NASA SSPP should be expanded to include the annual
performance of all NASA NZEBs. In the short term, once NASA commits to NZEB operations
on a project, the OMB scorecard graphic shown in Figure 2-1 could be used at the project and
agency level for annual tracking. For example, the scorecard could indicate whether all
applicable new construction is achieving net zero energy within the fiscal year (green), net zero
energy within the past two fiscal years (yellow), or failure to achieve net zero energy for all
buildings within the past two fiscal years (red). NASA should incentivize and remediate progress
toward the NZEB goal using mechanisms that have already been used in response to the SSPP
annual results, if applicable at the Center or building level.

16
 Table 2-2 Strategic-Level Metrics Leading to NZEBs by 2030

Metrics and minimum criteria Pre- 2020 2025 2030

2020

NZEB planning, design, and construction for new NASA buildings

Calculation: The number of buildings that

formally set a NZEB target*, divided by

EO 13514 metric: Percent of NASA new the number of buildings with a PER
buildings, entering planning in 2020 and developed in 2020 and thereafter
thereafter, designed to achieve net zero energy
x 100

N/A 100% 100% N/A

NZEB operations for new NASA buildings

Calculation: The number of buildings in year

two of operations and thereafter that
demonstrate net zero energy, through
measurement of energy use and production,
EO 13514 metric: Percent of NASA new for the fiscal year, divided by
buildings, entering planning in 2020 and
thereafter, achieving net zero energy in the the number of buildings with a PER
fiscal year (per EO 13514) developed in 2020 and thereafter
x 100

N/A N/A N/A 100%

Calculation: The number of buildings in year

two of operations and thereafter that
demonstrate net zero energy, through
measurement of energy use and production
in a fiscal year, during at least one of the past
NASA metric: Percent of NASA new buildings,
two fiscal years, divided by
entering planning in 2020 and thereafter,
achieving net zero energy within the past two
fiscal years the number of buildings with a PER
developed in 2020 and thereafter
x 100

N/A N/A N/A 100%

*Aligning with the NZEB tactic in the roadmap, a formal NZEB target means one that is included in the project
contract. If net zero energy is not required in a project contract then the project should be counted as design to
achieve net zero energy if an aggressive EUI is included in the project contract and other NZEB tactics are being
used according to the roadmap.

17
 Figure 2-1 Energy-related goals in the NASA 2013 SSPP

2.4 Culture Change

NZEBs require the commitment and direct involvement of a variety of organizational
stakeholders at NASA:

Master planning
Senior managers
Contracting officers
Financial managers
Project managers
Energy and environmental managers
Facility engineers and managers
O&M staff
Procurement and property managers
Information services
Building occupants.
Business-as-usual practices for designing, constructing, and operating buildings will not be
conducive to NZEB performance levels. We recommend that NASA:

Continue to establish a culture of innovation and leadership in sustainable design, just as

it has in aerospace technology.
Consider energy to be an important factor for all building design tradeoffs.
Ensure that long-term cost implications take precedence over short-term gains and short
payback periods.

18
 Always factor nonenergy benefits, including those that cant be quantified monetarily,
into the decision-making process.
Maintain essential functionality, but eliminate unnecessary equipment and miscellaneous
electric loads (MELs) when they do not contribute to the mission or to the comfort and
well-being of employees.
Mitigate project team boundary issues in favor of a more collaborative and integrated
design and construction process.
Educate occupants about how to take action to minimize wasted energy in their own work
areas, and ensure that managers encourage and reward such efforts.
Leverage and strengthen human capital at Centers to drive NZEBs agency wide.
Engage external partners to participate in culture change using contracting mechanisms
or incentives. External partners include:
o Designers
o Construction contractors
o Energy modelers
o Commissioning agents
o Food services and vending companies
o Contracted staff such as for custodial or security services.
This culture change may be very challenging at times, necessitating leadership and continuous
reinforcement of NASAs commitment to NZEBs by senior managers. Positive incentives and
buy-in from all stakeholders are likely to be the most effective methods to ensure cooperation
and active support from all parties. However, a balance between incentives and policy-based
motivators may be the optimal approach for securing commitments and innovation from
stakeholders.

In addition to the increased emphasis and communication from NASA Headquarters to Centers
about NZEB goals, and the ongoing training required to prepare all stakeholders for the
organizational and tactical tasks being delegated, two specific ongoing efforts will require
support from NASA Headquarters: assignment of energy performance assurance capability and
formation of an occupant engagement program.

2.4.1 Net Zero Energy Building Performance Assurance Capability

In this roadmap, NZEB energy performance assurance capability is the umbrella description
given to unique elements of a NZEB program relative to traditional building acquisition and
operation. These elements given in action form are to:

1. First and foremost, define a NASA program that focuses on culture change within the
agency and aims to address concerns, provide timely information, and share successes
and lessons learned around the NZEB goal.
2. Deliver agency-wide training on NZEB organizational proficiency categories and either
deliver or facilitate trainings for NZEB tactics.

19
 3. Help to set and review project-specific EUI goals.
4. Add a checks-and-balances perspective to moving through the NZEB definitions; review
project team-provided substantiation documents that justify movement through the NZEB
process and steps.
5. Guide project teams toward the EUI goal by proposing NZEB tactics and reviewing
substantiation documentation.
6. Communicate with project managers in a continuous and agile manner to perform
energy-related substantiation reviews and RE procurement information at the time of
decision-making.
7. Cut across all procurement activities to ensure coordination of the NZEB effort and that
procurement contract requirements do not introduce roadblocks for NZEBs.
8. Help teams procure RE and purchase green power.
9. Track NZEB tactic lessons learned and deliver the important lessons learned to other
project teams at the time of relevant decision-making.
10. Translate NZEB tactics into generic Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or specification
language once NASA has demonstrated proficiency.
11. Ultimately, ensure that all new construction projects starting design in 2020 and
thereafter are designed to NZEB standards, and assist in tracking and goal alignment for
buildings operating to net zero site energy in 2030 and beyond.
This capability is presented in this roadmap as a Headquarters perspective for simplicity, but it
could take shape in any number of ways. One of the first steps in roadmap implementation is to
appropriately define this capability within NASA to align with current Center energy manager
and Headquarters energy and sustainability roles, and scope depending on a specific timeline and
location for new construction and major renovation projects.

2.4.2 Occupant Engagement Program

A key to sustaining long-term performance is acknowledging how building occupants influence
the amount of energy consumed. Based on NREL analysis of a typical office building, occupants
can control approximately 50% of the energy used in office buildings such as lighting, plug
loads, and environmental system controls. Designing to a performance goal, and incorporating
technology and building automation to guarantee NZEB performance in the first year are simply
first steps; an energy performance assurance process will need to be developed that relies on
occupants to support energy goals throughout the building life. A frustrated user can disable the
most energy-efficient settings to achieve the desired results and can easily turn an NZEB from
peak to poor performance. In a high performance building where every Watt counts, NASA will
need to engage and enable staff members to understand their impacts on each building. The
development and deployment of an occupant engagement program are critical to attain
successful outcomes that build awareness, participation, and ownership.

Because all buildings have common elements, an occupant engagement program should be
standardized at the Headquarters level based on collaboration with the Centers. For example,
occupancy patterns should be collected in a standard way for benchmarking and use of the
metrics listed in Section 2.3. Also, the POE process currently being standardized at the

20
Headquarters level can serve as a vehicle for collecting and disseminating NZEB lessons learned.
The specific information relating to occupant engagement that should be tracked includes:

Occupancy patterns
Occupant-driven MELs use types and patterns
Percent energy use that can be impacted by occupant control.
Type of occupant engagement programs (e.g., email-based reminders to turn off personal
lighting systems)
Efficacy of occupant engagement programs for evaluation and potential use by other
Centers.
Engagement in the NZEB planning, design, construction, and operation process is equally
critical for facility managers and engineers. In a sense, these people are super-users and
occupants because their decisions about energy system settings have impacts on annual energy
use that are often much larger than a typical occupants impact. To engage facilities team
members, NASA should consider an element to the agency-wide occupant engagement program
that encourages communication of all lessons learned, resulting in transparency and pride in
progress toward NZEBs in incremental steps. An element of this program could include sending
NASA facilities staff to industry conferences to share their specific experiences with NZEBs and
to collect information from other agencies and owners that can then be shared internally.
Agency-level communication, education, and advocacy for proficiency in NZEBs among NASA
staff are equally important to the project-level tactics that will lead to proficiency.

21
3 Organizational Level Considerations
To meet the strategic objectives discussed in Section 2.0, more specific organizational and
tactical objectives must be achieved. This section defines the key organizational proficiency
categories necessary to ensure that NZEBs become standard expectation for new buildings by
2030 and describes organization-wide metrics that can be used to benchmark progress toward
long-term goals. The premise of the organizational proficiency approach is that there is a set of
categorical actions (tactics) that, when bundled appropriately based on project type and location,
are unique to NZEBs. If the appropriate tactics are selected based on early project analysis and
successfully implemented, an NZEB will presumably be achieved. This is not meant to imply
that achieving an NZEB will be easy; successful execution of tactics will require culture and
procurement process changes, extensive energy and cost modeling, and a focus on
implementation and operation details.

3.1 Capstone and Organizational Proficiency Categories

Organizational proficiency (OP) categories include the experience, skills, and standard
workflows necessary at the Center level to achieve the strategic goals defined in this roadmap.
Table 3-1 shows four key OP categories that an organization must successfully master to
standardize NZEBs for new construction. Two additional proficiency categories, called capstone
proficiencies (CPs), initiate and carry the NZEB roadmap through 2030 and beyond. The CPs
address experience, skills, and workflows needed at the agency-level. CP1 is an ongoing
category that will be developed throughout the implementation of the roadmap, and CP2 is
achieved by definition when NASA demonstrates proficiency in the four organizational
proficiency categories. Each tactic has been adopted as standard practice.

Because it is difficult to objectively prove that these proficiencies have been accomplished, the
best approach is to demonstrate proficiency through pilot projects, documentation of lessons
learned, mentoring programs, and ultimately policy changes that mandate the application of the
resulting best practices. The number of successful pilot projects needed to establish best practices
and demonstrate proficiency with high confidence can vary greatly depending on the nature of
the proficiency. Best practices for acquisition, solar integration, and operations are fairly
independent of climate and building type, and may require fewer pilot projects. Energy-efficient
design principles are likely to be very different depending on the site specifics, involving many
tactics, and a more diverse set of pilot projects may be necessary to establish best practices that
can be applied to all NASA building types at all Centers. Table 3-2 provides an example of how
a series of pilot projects spanning several years can be used to develop proficiency in energy-
efficient design, and provides target years for several other organizational proficiencies. See
Section 4.0 for complete tactic tables.

22
 Table 3-1 Capstone and Organizational Proficiency Categories
Capstone and Organizational
Purpose
Proficiency Categories
In 2014 and 2015, transition the NZEB roadmap into a formal NASA
CP1: Institutionalize NASA
process that integrates into current project planning, execution, and
NZEB workflow
review processes.
In a step-by-step approach, integrate elements of an energy
OP1: Establish NZEB performance-based acquisition process into current NASA acquisition
acquisition process processes by the end of 2017; starting in 2018, all projects begin with
a project structure that is conducive to achieving NZEBs.
A base level of energy efficiency is required by all new projects. Key
system elements and performance requirements are identified that
OP2: Establish EE system have been shown to be roadblocks to NZEBs in low energy building
best practices case studies. Each new construction project should select at least
two system-level tactics that will result in a set of lessons learned that
will ensure success on future projects.
In line with the NZEB definition and steps identified in this roadmap,
RE systems can be time phased and emphasized second to energy
OP3: Establish RE system
efficiency. Once NASA has started to demonstrate proficiency in the
integration process
energy efficiency categories of envelope, lighting, HVAC, and MELs,
project resources should be directed toward integrating RE systems.
NZEB operation requires efforts that are not common in standard
OP4: Establish NZEB
practice. The tactics identify efforts related to submetering, O&M
operations plan
practices, and occupant engagement.
As a capstone category, these tactics define agency-level metrics for
CP2: Achieve NZEBs
tracking progress toward the EO 13514 NZEB goal.

23
 Table 3-2 Example Time-Phased Approach To Developing Organizational Proficiencies

2015

2020

2025

2030
Organizational
Tactics
Proficiency Categories

OP1: NZEB acquisition

OP1 tactics, left blank intentionally for the example
process

Procure an
Pilot and develop spec
advanced lighting
language
control system

Pilot and
Require air barrier
develop spec
OP2: EE system best testing
language
practices
Account for and Pilot and develop spec
control MELs language

Remaining OP2 tactics, left blank intentionally

OP3: RE system
OP3 tactics, left blank intentionally for the example
integration process

OP4: NZEB operations

OP4 tactics, left blank intentionally for the example
plan

3.2 Organizational Metrics

Metrics used to track organizational objectives must be practical to assess and realistic to
achieve, culminating in successful accomplishment of all strategic objectives. The metric
recommended for this purpose is the percent of tactics successfully piloted (i.e., results lead to
new master specification language). This metric is presented in Table 3-3 along with suggested
multiyear targets, which are based on the suggested start year for each tactic and an assumption
of approximately three new construction projects per year between 2016 and 2025.

24
 Table 3-3 Organizational-Level Metric Leading to NZEBs by 2030

Metrics and minimum criteria 2020 2025 2030

NZEB tactics for NASA new and major renovation projects

Calculation: The number of tactics that have been

translated into NASA general specification
language or requirements, divided by
NASA metric: Minimum percent of OP
tactics successfully piloted in new the total number of tactics in the most current
construction and major retrofit projects version of the roadmap*
x 100

30% 90% 100%

*The roadmap identifies 46 tactics within the organizational proficiency categories (57 tactics including the
capstone categories) that collectively differentiate NZEBs from typical practice. All tactics are not required for each
project to achieve an NZEB but most will be used on every NZEB project entering planning in 2020 and thereafter.
To ensure that tactic implementation is tracked on multiple projects for informal trends analysis among successes
and lessons learned, each project starting in 2015 should select a minimum of 10 tactics to formally pilot. The
number of tactics used but not necessarily piloted (e.g., tracked) should gradually increase based on project start
year to approximately 35 tactics used for projects entering planning in 2020. This will give the pilot iteration time
needed to turn most tactic pilots into specification language by 2025.

Figure 3-1 shows the distribution of tactic implementation (might not correlate directly to project
start date) relative to the marker years identified by EO 13514 and the strategic metrics given in
Section 2.3. This figure is meant to give a general picture of when NASA activity related to pilot
implementation and tracking will be greatest and when tactics from each proficiency category
should be phased in to planning discussions. More specific pilot time periods for each tactic,
which conclude with the development of specification and requirement language, are given in
Section 4.0.

25
Pilot tactics and develop general specifications and requirements

Use resulting specifications and requirements for new projects

2020

2030
2015

2018

2025
NZEB acquisition process

EE system best practices

RE system integration

NZEB operations plan

90% of OP tactics have been All OP tactics have been piloted at

piloted at least once and 30% have least once and 90% of OP tactics have
been turned into requirements been turned into requirements

Figure 3-1 Strategic and organizational metric overlay

3.3 Project-Specific Metrics

Project-specific metrics in the will be helpful to connect the tactics (primarily those in OP2 and
OP3) to the NZEB steps presented in 2.2.2.1. As discussed, it is important to ensure that NZEBs
meet a threshold level of energy efficiency before RE is added. Because it is difficult to
demonstrate that the energy efficiency requirements of Step 1 have been met for a particular
building, we recommend simplifying the process for project teams by establishing a series of
EUI targets for each major building type NASA constructs. Each EUI target should correspond
to the NZER point on the optimal life cycle cost curve for the relevant building type (see Figure
3-2), which defines the most cost-effective efficiency package at each level of energy savings.
This curve may vary significantly depending on the building type and climate region. The EUI
targets will include all energy uses in the building, including MELs. EUI targets may change
over time, and NASA should revisit changes in technology, measure costs, and energy prices as
necessary to determine if lower EUI targets are justified. Terms used in Figure 3-2 are defined
below:

Total life cycle cost (TLCC)

o Inputs. Analysis period, discount rate, measure costs, measure lifetimes
o Incorporates. Capital costs, O&M costs, energy costs, replacement and salvage
costs, tax implications, impact on resale value.
Optimal life cycle cost curve. A series of points, approximated by a curve, representing
packages that achieve a specific level of energy savings at the lowest TLCC.

26
 Baseline. The efficiency level consistent with NASAs current practice and the Guiding
Principles.
Cost minimum. An efficiency package that minimizes TLCC; maximum return on
investment.
Cost neutral. An efficiency package with the same TLCC as the baseline; maximum
efficiency level that can be achieved cost effectively.
NZER. An efficiency package that includes all the efficiency measures that are more cost
effective than RE, consistent with Step 1 of the NZEB definition.
NZE. Adding RE generation to an NZER efficiency package as needed to achieve annual
site NZE.

Figure 3-2 NZER in context of optimal life cycle cost curve

As a starting point for project teams, Table 3-4 gives EUI targets by typical building type and
climate zone that applies to NASA Centers. The values given are based on a study performed by
NREL (Griffith 2007) to determine the max tech scenario, or the energy performance possible
when all appropriate and available energy efficiency solutions are applied to a specific building
type in a specific climate. The targets do not necessarily represent the best possible EUI that can
be achieved; rather, they represent an aggressive yet achievable target for a project that begins
design once the roadmap is implemented. These EUIs are not as aggressive as the 50% reduction
versus ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 that should be targeted starting in 2020.

27
 Table 3-4 Reference EUI Targets by Climate and Building Type
(in kBtu/ft2/yr [kWh/ft2/yr])

Climate Zone 2 3 4 5

NASA Centers and JSC, MAF, ARC, AFRC, GSFC, HQ, GRC, PBS
Component Facilities SSC, KSC JPL, GDSCC, WFF, LaRC
WSTF, MSFC
Assembly/public 36 (11) 38 (11) 27 (8) 29 (8)
Food services 298 (87) 334 (98) 305 (89) 316 (93)
Laboratory 319 (93) 319 (93) 227 (67) 286 (84)
Office 36 (11) 30 (9) 34 (10) 33 (10)
Service 42 (12) 32 (9) 38 (11) 40 (12)
Training/classroom 27 (8) 22 (6) 26 (8) 22 (6)
Warehouse 13 (4) 15 (4) 17 (5) 19 (6)

This roadmap recommends that these values be used for reference only, to familiarize a project
planning team with a ballpark goal. Each project lead should evaluate the mix of space types that
will be included in each project, and then use references such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencys ENERGY STAR Target Finder and Labs21 tools to refine the target
before schematic design, and preferably during preplanning so that the target can be included in
the contract. Target setting should be applied to all new construction projects whether or not an
NZEB is being pursued. New construction projects that enter design in 2020 and thereafter
should use the TLCC evaluation process outlined earlier in this section. The project team for a
building seeking NZEB status must first identify a plausible path or technology package for
achieving an NZEB for the specific climate and building type mix, within an estimated project
budget. This will help set the EUI goal for the design and construction team. Then, the project
team can identify the actual technology package in design that meets the EUI goal in the most
cost-effective way using real-time cost information and more detailed TLCC information about
the systems being considered. Just like integrated project design, goal setting is an iterative
process:

1. NASA starts with ballpark goals.

2. NASA and an energy analyst use TLCC to refine the goals.
a. Consider using tiered goals if a design competition is used.
b. Consider normalizing the goals for uncertain design elements such as occupancy
or data center capacity.
3. The integrated project team achieves the goals in design, construction, and early
operation.
4. NASA and the integrated project team assess the goals at project conclusion for feedback
to future, similar projects.

28
Site EUI targets should be informed by lower level metrics based on the types of activities
conducted in each building. These lower level metrics can be much easier to estimate, and can be
combined to create higher level EUI metrics for mixed-use buildings, such as laboratory
buildings that also include office space or a cafeteria. Table 3-5 lists some of the common energy
use metrics used for various building and space types.

Table 3-5 Common Metrics Used in Various Building Space Categories

Metric Application
2 2
Btu/ft (Wh/ft ) Any building
Btu/employee (Wh/employee) Office building
Btu/unit of product (Wh/unit) Assembly/manufacturing
kWh/ft2 Lighting
kW/ton Chilled water efficiency
W/ft3 airflow/min HVAC systems

Other methods for establishing intermediate goals, such as percent savings relative to NASA
current practice or percent of energy use met by renewables, are less practical in the context of
setting targets for performance-based design and construction contracts.

Sustainable or green buildings may require additional metrics, including water use intensity,
embodied energy, percent recycled content, and other metrics, to demonstrate minimized
environmental impact. However, this roadmap focuses on the metrics related to energy
efficiency, and does not establish other important sustainability metrics.

29
4 Tactical Level Considerations
The third and most actionable series of objectives is tactical. This section describes the essential
tactics associated with NZEB design and construction based on lessons learned from NRELs
experience designing and operating NZEBs as well as numerous high performance buildings
documented in a recent study by NBI (NBI 2012). These tactics cover the spectrum from
building acquisition processes to operation practices. A large cross-section of stakeholders must
be involved in the execution of these tactics for NZEBs to be a consistent outcome of NASAs
new construction projects. As outlined in Section 2.4.1, an energy performance assurance
process should be developed to guide tactic implementation as described in the following
sections.

4.1 Tactical Objectives

Each CP and OP category includes a number of tactics, each of which must be successfully
implemented through a series of pilot projects. Many tactics have been executed by other
organizations, including NASA, and can be straightforward to implement with minimal risk and
disruption to current workflows. Others will require innovative approaches that may replace the
current building acquisition processes and design methodologies applied by NASA for new
construction projects. Table 4-1 through Table 4-6 summarize the tactics associated with each
proficiency category. In addition to tactic description and numbering the tables present
information under the following headings.

Tactic priority: From one to five, this value suggests the prioritization of all tactics across
proficiency categories.
Resources: If available, specific resources are listed that have further information about
the tactic purpose or implementation approach. General resource types are also listed for
more commonly implemented tactics.
Metrics for success: The metrics are guides for assessing the level of success of each pilot
(the elements of a successful pilot should be translated into draft specification language
and the elements of an unsuccessful pilot should be fed into other pilots as lessons
learned).
Climate and building type: This is a placeholder for identifying if the tactic applies
primarily or only to specific climates or building types. Most tactics apply to all projects.
Tactic pairs: While there is synergy among all tactics, this placeholder highlights other
tactics that must be used or considered when the listed tactic is piloted. The paired tactics
do not necessarily have to be formally piloted (e.g., tracked for comparison to the metric
for success) on the project. The tactic pair notes in the roadmap are not exhaustive, but
rather they are meant to bring attention to key connections.
Pilot years: This is the approximate timeframe for which the tactic should be piloted, on
numerous projects if necessary. The tactic should be turned into NASA specification
language or requirements by the end year. Once a tactic has been transitioned to a
requirement, it should still be used on projects but its success does not necessarily need to
be tracked and reported with the same rigor as piloted tactics (unless tracking and
reporting the success is part of the final requirement).

30
 Table 4-1 Tactics for CP1 (Institutionalize NASA NZEB Workflow)

CP1 Purpose: Transition the NZEB roadmap into a formal NASA process that integrates into current project planning, execution, and review
processes.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate Tactic

Pilot years
Priority

and pairs
building
type

1 CP Define NZEB energy Determine the appropriate breadth of N/A Annual tracking and N/A N/A 2014
1.1 performance scope and roles required to execute progress toward NASA
assurance capability the roadmap organizational NZEB goal
1 CP Establish a process Adjust the selection approach N/A Each new project pilots a N/A N/A 2014
1.2 for selecting tactics proposed in the roadmap as minimum of ten tactics
for each project information is collected about future from each proficiency
project size, location, and siting category
1 CP Establish a pilot Enhance the existing POE process to N/A A second pilot is N/A N/A 2014
1.3 lessons learned ensure that tactic-specific lessons successfully implemented
dissemination learned are transferred as preliminary based on a first pilot
approach design guidance to projects using lessons learned
relevant tactics
2 CP Establish a process Develop a tracking tool to monitor the N/A Tracking tool and N/A N/A 2014-
1.4 for distilling lessons success of each piloted tactic. On specification or policy 2015
learned from pilot success, identify key components of language template
POEs into generic the tactic that can be turned into
RFP, specification, specification language or policy
or policy language
2 CP Establish a process Set criteria to determine if unsuccessful N/A A second pilot results in N/A N/A 2014-
1.5 for identifying piloted tactics should be persisted, success or unique lessons 2015
technology/process replaced, or escalated for further learned compared to a
gaps and addressing research/resources previous pilot project
high-risk buildings
such as labs or
buildings in humid
climates

31
CP1 Purpose: Transition the NZEB roadmap into a formal NASA process that integrates into current project planning, execution, and review
processes.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate Tactic

Pilot years
Priority

and pairs
building
type

2 CP Perform a Establish references for metrics for N/A A set of NASA-specific N/A N/A 2014-
1.6 benchmarking effort success (examples given in Section metrics for success, 2015
of existing NASA high 2.3) to be used for project planning and focused on subsystems,
performance early energy models, and then updated that can be normalized
buildings with each project and used for based on occupancy, space
verification in operations density, etc.
2 CP Hold an NZEB team Upon agency acceptance of an NZEB N/A A first set of tactics is N/A N/A 2014-
1.7 kickoff meeting roadmap, brief project managers, selected by a project team 2015
energy managers, and the first pilot (tactic selection should be
project team guided by a team member
who has energy
performance assurance
capability)
3 CP Refine OP3 tactics Review the most recent RE assessment N/A OP3 tactics are refined to N/A N/A 2015-
1.8 based on known site summaries, if more recent than the address Center-level 2020
Center barriers to RE 2011 report, and add RE tactics as challenges
implementation needed for each Center, with emphasis
on high-risk sites such as those that are
land constrained
3 CP Develop a strategic- Based on other CP1 tactic outcomes, N/A A fiscal year reporting N/A N/A 2016-
1.9 level performance assign Center or Headquarters level process is established that 2020
assurance review oversight of the NZEB design and allows project teams to
process for NZEBs operations process, as well as communicate the past year
performance measurement, reporting, energy use and RE
and comparison to EUI and NZEB goals production for each project
planned as an NZEB, to the
Centers and Headquarters

32
 Table 4-2 Tactics for OP1 (Establish NZEB Acquisition Process)

OP1 Purpose: In a step-by-step approach, integrate elements of an energy performance-based acquisition process into current NASA acquisition
processes; by 2018, all projects begin with a project structure that is conducive to achieving NZEBs.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

and pairs
building
type

1 OP Use an integrated Evaluate options for integrated project http://www. Execute project on time All N/A 2014-
1.1 project delivery delivery and select a team structure aia.org/cont and on budget, while 2017
process focused on that supports project energy objectives. ractdocs/ai meeting energy objectives.
energy Clearly define energy objectives (e.g., as077630 Energy (and water)
require that all Leadership in Energy objectives are met before
and Environmental Design [LEED] nonenergy-related LEED
energy credits be achieved) credits are met
1 OP Assemble a NASA If design-build is appropriate for the DBIA A DBIA-issued record of All N/A 2014-
1.2 project team to take project, use Design-Build Institute of training training or other equivalent 2017
training using a America (DBIA) training. Otherwise, modules documentation of training
performance-based select an acquisition approach that or experience in
acquisition approach allows for early contractor involvement performance-based
for at-risk cost estimating, inclusion of acquisition with an
energy goals in the contract, and emphasis on energy
performance incentive structures performance
2 OP Include an EUI goal Select an EUI goal, starting with the DBIA Design team substantiated All N/A 2014-
1.3 and a NZEB goal in reference values given in the training goal in energy modeling 2017
the project contract organizational section of the roadmap, modules coincident with the design
and require that this goal be met in the phases. The final energy
project contract model shows the building
is on track to meet the goal
2 OP Define energy goal Create an energy appendix in the NREL how- Energy calculation All OP 2014-
1.4 substantiation project contract or request for to guide, appendix is developed by 1.3 2017
requirements proposals that shows how NASA http://buildi NASA, with the help of
expects the energy calculations to be ngdata.ene internal or external energy
performed and presented, allowing for rgy.gov/cbr analysts, and is followed
equal comparisons across proposing d/energy_b by the design team
teams and easier internal review of ased_acqui
energy calculations sition/

33
OP1 Purpose: In a step-by-step approach, integrate elements of an energy performance-based acquisition process into current NASA acquisition
processes; by 2018, all projects begin with a project structure that is conducive to achieving NZEBs.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

and pairs
building
type

2 OP Include owner Review each potential building system NREL how- All loads are well defined All OP 2014-
1.5 representation from (e.g., security systems, laboratory to guide, in the energy appendix; no 1.3 2017
all building systems setup) at project kickoff and ensure http://buildi general load types are
on the integrated there is representation to define ngdata.ene added after the energy
project team system needs early in the design rgy.gov/cbr appendix is released to the
d/energy_b design team
ased_acqui
sition/
2 OP Include internal Identify internal system experts for N/A The energy efficiency OP2 N/A 2014-
1.6 system experts on HVAC, lighting, envelope, tactics are successful or 2018
the integrated miscellaneous loads, and/or data are not noted as
project team centers. Experts relevant to the unsuccessful due to lack of
selected energy efficiency tactics for a NASA guidance and input
project should attend project meetings,
review substantiation documents, and
participate in project acceptance
2 OP Use performance Select an aggressive EUI goal that is DBIA Project energy goal is All N/A 2015-
1.7 incentives that are on target for net zero energy and training achieved on time and on 2018
tied to an EUI goal include in the project contract. Set modules budget, and more than
aside 1%-2% of the project budget as 75% of the award fee is
an award fee if the team substantiated awarded to the team
the energy goal in design and then in based on NASA
operations. The award fee comes out expectations for energy
of the project budget but goes back in performance being met or
to the project in the form of scope, exceeded
quality, and performance either through
the project team or through later, direct
use by NASA

34
OP1 Purpose: In a step-by-step approach, integrate elements of an energy performance-based acquisition process into current NASA acquisition
processes; by 2018, all projects begin with a project structure that is conducive to achieving NZEBs.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

and pairs
building
type

3 OP Use a competitive Use a best-value project team DBIA The selected team meets All N/A 2015-
1.8 team selection selection process in which part of the training or exceeds the NASA- 2018
process that gives value is based on a full project modules specified energy goal in
substantial selection proposal, including preliminary energy design and in operations
weight to proposed calculations, that shows how a NASA-
energy efficiency specified EUI will be met or exceeded
4 OP Require an early Use internal or external energy http://opens The optimization model All, N/A 2016-
1.9 cost and energy analysts to create a NZER building by tudio.nrel.g gives clear direction to the emphasize 2019
optimization model determining the efficiency package that ov (classes team on building design hot and
for building system is most cost effective before to be features that can be humid
selection renewables become the next most offered by referenced by the final
cost-effective measure. Establish this NREL- design specifications
solution set in early design. Internal authorized
energy analyst involvement is trainers)
encouraged for internal ownership and
continued updating of the model
4 OP Use a NZEB project Engage a team member who has N/A List solutions to the POE All N/A 2016-
1.10 kickoff process energy performance assurance issues identified and use 2019
capability to implement the processes project members with
established in OP1. An NZEB kickoff experience on other site
process might also include early buildings if possible, and
energy modeling as well as evaluation reach out to Centers in
of relevant POE lessons learned and similar climates for early
successful tactics for inclusion in the design feedback
project RFP
4 OP Require that NASA Enhance traditional or LEED defined USGBC Commissioning practices All N/A 2018-
1.11 hold an NZEB commissioning to be defined and support NZEB operation 2021
commissioning contracted as an owners during the first year of
contract representative role building operation

35
OP1 Purpose: In a step-by-step approach, integrate elements of an energy performance-based acquisition process into current NASA acquisition
processes; by 2018, all projects begin with a project structure that is conducive to achieving NZEBs.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

and pairs
building
type

4 OP Evaluate contract Require or negotiate enhanced training N/A Through an iterative All N/A 2018-
1.12 requirements for for high-risk systems or systems that process of O&M cycles 2021
energy efficiency NASA or the Center is using for the and retraining, NASA O&M
system training at first time. Preferably, require condition- staff is able to service
project turnover based maintenance and training for energy efficiency system
multiple seasonal cycles. equipment without
additional service calls to
the manufacturer

36
 Table 4-3 Tactics for OP2 (Establish Energy Efficiency System Best Practices)

OP2 Purpose: A base level of energy efficiency is required by all new projects. Additionally, key system elements and performance requirements
are identified that have been shown as roadblocks to NZEBs in low energy building case studies. Each new construction project should select at
least one system-level tactic to address in a resource-focused manner with the result being a set of lessons learned that will ensure success on
future projects.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

1 OP Use passive design Use the following design solutions to ASHRAE A checklist noting design All N/A 2014-
2.1 solutions the extent possible: east-west building Advanced team discussion and 2017
orientation, less than 70-foot floor plate Energy Design modeling regarding each
depth, passive solar design, high- Guides approach. Verify that
performance building envelope (detailed added geometry or
consideration of glazing, insulation, and complexity serves an
thermal breaks), consideration of static energy purpose
building elements and landscape
elements to assist in solar shading and
natural ventilation, rectilinear form with
modular elements
1 OP Use efficient active Use the following design solutions to ASHRAE Use industry-developed All OP 2014-
2.2 systems the extent possible: lighting system Advanced guidance such as the 2.1 2017
installed power less than 0.8 W/ft2, Energy Design Advanced Energy Design
ENERGY STAR approved or FEMP Guides Guides to design and
designated equipment, energy recovery specify low energy
to preheat or cool ventilation air, size building systems required
the HVAC system to meet only the load to meet the loads not
not met by the passive systems ("right- addressed through
size" the HVAC system), automatic passive design
shading, dynamic glass, automated
windows, natural ventilation circulating
fans

37
OP2 Purpose: A base level of energy efficiency is required by all new projects. Additionally, key system elements and performance requirements
are identified that have been shown as roadblocks to NZEBs in low energy building case studies. Each new construction project should select at
least one system-level tactic to address in a resource-focused manner with the result being a set of lessons learned that will ensure success on
future projects.

Envelope

2 OP Procure an optimized Go beyond best practices suggested in ASHRAE ASHRAE Standard 189 All OP 2015-
2.3 envelope OP 2.1 and compare envelope Standard 189 envelope requirements or 2.1 2022
alternatives using an energy model to better are shown in
refine window-to-wall ratio, roof and wall design documents
insulation level, glazing properties, and
at minimum meet ASHRAE Standard
189 recommendations
2 OP Require air barrier Ensure proper implementation of OP ASHRAE ASHRAE standard 189 All OP 2015-
2.4 testing 2.3 by requiring field air barrier testing Standard 189 (ASTM E2357) air barrier 2.3 2022
as part of the commissioning process testing requirements are
performed
2 OP Incorporate an Use a daylighting model to drive the ASHRAE Glare free daylighting at All, with less OP 2015-
2.5 aggressive daylighting building footprint and envelope in early Standard 189 25 fc average for 75% of emphasis in 2.1 2022
design design and verify the effectiveness of at the building is measured cold
least three different daylighting options. and verified
Allow interior spaces to borrow
daylight from perimeter spaces even if
the daylight saturation does not meet
the complete lighting need of the space
2 OP Use natural ventilation Use an airflow model to verify expected ASHRAE Eliminate the need for an Mild OP 2015-
2.6 results due to wind resource and Standard 189 active air conditioning 2.1 2022
internal pressure. Consider both cross system
and stack ventilation options
Lighting

1 OP Use vacancy sensors Employ a design philosophy that Case studies Verify that no lights in All OP 2015-
2.7 in all daylit areas requires occupants to "opt-in" when daylit areas turn on 2.2 2022
they want more light than is provided by automatically. Occupants
daylight must manually turn lights

38
OP2 Purpose: A base level of energy efficiency is required by all new projects. Additionally, key system elements and performance requirements
are identified that have been shown as roadblocks to NZEBs in low energy building case studies. Each new construction project should select at
least one system-level tactic to address in a resource-focused manner with the result being a set of lessons learned that will ensure success on
future projects.

on

2 OP Use a task/ambient or Provide layers of electric light to Case studies Verify that lighting energy All OP 2015-
2.8 personal lighting address different occupant type and use varies on an hourly 2.2 2022
control system task needs basis in non-daylit spaces
(or during non-daylit
hours), in parallel with an
assumption of occupancy
and task diversity in those
spaces
3 OP Procure an advanced Combine lighting control solutions for Case studies Greater than 50% lighting All OP 2015-
2.9 lighting control system daylighting, occupant type, task type, energy use reduction 2.2, 2022
and has capability for demand control. versus an ASHRAE 90.1 2.7,
Auto-commissioning features should be 2010 baseline is 2.8
considered measured and verified
HVAC

2 OP Use a dedicated Separate ventilation air from the heating Case studies Design for, and measure All OP 2015-
2.10 outside air system and cooling systems. Employ energy and verify 50% system 2.1, 2022
recovery to pretreat the air energy savings versus a 2.2
90.1-2010 baseline
2 OP Use a hydronic system Consider pairing with GSHP or central Case studies Design for, and measure All, except OP 2015-
2.11 for heating plant systems and verify 50% system hot 2.1, 2022
energy savings versus a 2.2
90.1-2010 baseline
2 OP Use a hydronic system Consider pairing with GSHP or central Case studies Design for, and measure All, except OP 2015-
2.12 for cooling plant systems and verify 50% system cold 2.1, 2022
energy savings versus a 2.2
90.1-2010 baseline
3 OP Use a GSHP Use rigorous ground sampling, and Case studies Energy model predictions All OP 2015-
2.13 expert design, modeling, and match operations in the 2.1, 2022

39
OP2 Purpose: A base level of energy efficiency is required by all new projects. Additionally, key system elements and performance requirements
are identified that have been shown as roadblocks to NZEBs in low energy building case studies. Each new construction project should select at
least one system-level tactic to address in a resource-focused manner with the result being a set of lessons learned that will ensure success on
future projects.

commissioning to ensure the system first year of operation 2.2,

provides expected energy savings 2.11,
2.12
3 OP Use aggressive heat Consider methods such as energy Case studies Require no active All OP 2015-
2.14 recovery methods recovery wheels, transpired solar preheating/cooling of 2.1, 2022
collectors, and data center heat ventilation air 2.2
recovery
3 OP Use passive Consider methods such as membranes Case studies Require only pump and Hot and OP 2015-
2.15 dehumidification or sea water cooling fan energy for humid 2.1, 2022
methods dehumidification 2.2
4 OP Use a layered HVAC Fine-tune HVAC system design to Case studies Design for, and measure All OP 2015-
2.16 system where there is provide heating, cooling, and/or and verify 75% system 2.1, 2022
a base load for ventilation only to occupants who need energy savings versus a 2.2
general comfort with space conditioning at a given point in 90.1-2010 baseline
tuning for varied time, accounting for heating/cooling
occupant comfort system latency
Miscellaneous

1 OP Require that a written The plan must describe function for all Case studies Written sequence of All N/A 2014-
2.17 sequence of variations in operations: occupancy operations in project 2016
operations be type, time of day, season, and must specifications and in
developed for each include reference to other systems that commissioning functional
system and interact with the system of interest (e.g., test plans
subsystem shade operation must reference
operable windows)
2 OP Account and control In preplanning or early design, take an NREL MELs Verification that 75% of a All N/A 2014-
2.18 for MELs inventory of all MELs that are likely to workflow, buildings computers go 2020
be in the building based on other similar ACES current to sleep after 15 minutes
buildings or expert advice. Develop a work is shown through an
solution to control the plug loads implementing equipment survey and
throughout the life of the building a computer submetering results

40
OP2 Purpose: A base level of energy efficiency is required by all new projects. Additionally, key system elements and performance requirements
are identified that have been shown as roadblocks to NZEBs in low energy building case studies. Each new construction project should select at
least one system-level tactic to address in a resource-focused manner with the result being a set of lessons learned that will ensure success on
future projects.

sleep program

4 OP Use a control system Provide central control of all building N/A O&M use and acceptance All OP 2014-
2.19 that integrates HVAC, systems to allow for demand control of integrated control 2.9, 2022
lighting, and plug and adaptation to occupant preferences system 2.16
loads over time. The control system should
allow for collection and analysis of
system performance data
5 OP Deploy an occupant Develop or specify an occupant NREL case Energy model All OP 2020-
2.20 feedback system feedback system that gives occupants study; NASA assumptions and 2.19 2025
actionable information about when and internal predictions match
how to control their personal control efficiency occupant behavior
systems. Consider actuating control research
systems based on occupant
preferences to allow for preference-
based load reduction in lighting and
HVAC systems

41
 Table 4-4 Tactics for OP3 (Establish RE System Integration Process)

OP3 Purpose: In line with the NZEB definition and steps identified in this roadmap, RE systems are time phased and emphasized second to energy
efficiency. Once NASA has started to demonstrate proficiency in the energy efficiency categories of envelope, lighting, HVAC, and MELs, project
resources should be directed toward integrating RE systems.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

2 OP Apply the NZEB Ensure each project starts with a focus NASA NZEB Demonstrate that an All CP 2016-
3.1 evaluation process on energy efficiency in design and Roadmap implemented RE system 1.7, 2022
operations, and then evaluates the follows the classification 1.8
options for RE procurement system steps from 1 to 5
(as listed in the
roadmap)
2 OP Perform a RE Evaluate onsite options for renewables, NREL Project team provides an All OP 2016-
3.2 assessment for the focusing on zero-emitting sources such resources assessment report to a 3.1 2022
project as PV, wind, and SHW (SHW is NASA team member
considered a demand reduction with energy performance
solution in the NZEB process assurance capability
definition). Coordinate the RE
assessment with the most current
Center Master Plan.
3 OP Procure a solar hot Design and procure a solar hot water NREL Demonstrate a properly All OP 2020-
3.3 water system system that meets the typical demand resources sized system that meets 3.2 2023
of a building 75% of hot water needs
4 OP Procure a Once an energy-cost optimization is NREL Provide a future RE All OP 2016-
3.4 renewables-ready performed for a project and the "best in resources integration plan for the 3.1, 2022
building class" efficiency package is specified, building that requires no 3.2
include additional design new construction and
considerations such as structural diagrams the integration
integrity, electrical sleeving, piping, process for ease of
switches and valves, and structural future installation
attachment points for future RE
systems

42
OP3 Purpose: In line with the NZEB definition and steps identified in this roadmap, RE systems are time phased and emphasized second to energy
efficiency. Once NASA has started to demonstrate proficiency in the energy efficiency categories of envelope, lighting, HVAC, and MELs, project
resources should be directed toward integrating RE systems.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

5 OP Use a third-party Evaluate local and national guidelines NREL Demonstrate a All OP 2020-
3.5 owned RE system for power purchase agreements and resources successful RE power 3.1, 2026
integrated into an execute an agreement within a project purchase agreement 3.2
NZEB scope. Evaluate the success and model. Provide annual
lessons learned about the contract and lessons learned reports
RE system annually to a NASA team member
who has energy
performance assurance
capability
5 OP Evaluate the cost and If Step 4 of the NZEB process N/A If Step 4 is used in the All, OP 2020-
3.6 greenhouse gas definition is discussed as a potential acquisition of an NZEB, emphasis 3.1, 2026
emission impact of option in the NZEB kickoff meeting, the offsite RE is shown on high- 3.2
offsite renewables engage an agency-level sustainability to have at least two load
representative to support a life cycle benefits aside from net buildings
assessment of offsite RE options and zero energy, and be
coordinate decision making with more life cycle cost
current federal requirements related to effective than other RE
greenhouse gas reduction. options. A greenhouse
gas mitigation plan is
formed for emissions
related to offsite source
production and T&D.

43
 Table 4-5 Tactics for OP4 (Establish NZEB Operations Plan)

OP4 Purpose: NZEB operation requires efforts unique to standard practice. The tactics identify efforts related to submetering, O&M practices, and
occupant engagement.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

1 OP Require submetering Include a submetering requirement in Case studies All end use system All N/A 2014-
4.1 for all building end the project contract and ensure that the energy use can be 2017
uses electric and gas system design and viewed via the building
installation disaggregate all end uses. control system
Require that the meters be integrated
into the building control system
2 OP Use a change Create training materials, develop NREL Demonstrate an All N/A 2016-
4.2 management lunch-and-learn modules, or set up resources, approach for 2020
approach to prepare example systems and tours to prepare forthcoming communicating with and
occupants for NZEBs incoming occupants for the changes in FY14 collecting occupant
NZEB operations such as lower feedback about building
workstation walls, slower temperature features. Provide change
change, personal control systems, and management materials
their roles in energy use for use by other projects
2 OP Implement an NZEB Mandate a 30-day moratorium on all NREL A written policy All N/A 2016-
4.3 occupant move-in building changes (not maintenance- resources, addressing the move-in 2020
process related issues) that are related to forthcoming process for building
occupant preference to prevent FY14 operations staff and
reactive building operation practice and training materials for
allow occupants time to find occupants that give
personalized solutions to suggestions for
environmental changes compared to addressing common
previous working environments. Also, concerns related to
evaluate all building changes with NZEB systems
respect to impact on energy use and
choose a solution that balances
comfort and energy

44
OP4 Purpose: NZEB operation requires efforts unique to standard practice. The tactics identify efforts related to submetering, O&M practices, and
occupant engagement.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

2 OP Develop a building or Measure energy use and report the NREL A process is established All CP 2017-
4.4 Center-level actual energy use relative to the resources, that enables digital 1.9 2023
performance energy use goal. Use submeter data forthcoming reporting (maximum
assurance review and an as-built model to normalize the FY14 resolution of 15 minutes)
process for NZEB design-predicted EUI, and establish of the measured EUI
operations trend analysis for the expected annual compared to the
operating EUI. Measure and report normalized contract EUI,
energy use and production in a format for each building
compatible with the reporting process designed with an energy
determined in CP 1.9, but report and goal. A written review
review at a higher frequency than used plan is developed that
for CP 1.9 strategic-level review includes a quarterly or
higher frequency
evaluation of energy
performance
3 OP Develop or procure a Standardize a NASA display that is NREL A facilities team uses the All OP 2017-
4.5 standard NASA deployed at the building or Center level resources, display to determine the 4.4 2023
NZEB feedback to clearly present the information made forthcoming seasonal operating
display available for each building in OP 4.5. FY14 performance of a
The display should give ranges. This building relative to its
tactic requires display design, energy goal and
determination of acceptable operating identifies the area for
ranges, and addressing data access corrective action if the
gaps and barriers for transferring building is not meeting
submetered data to a display form the goal
3 OP Manage the Assign a building or Center plug load NREL PPL submetering shows All OP 2017-
4.6 procurement of PPLs champion to take part in PPL resources, alignment with the 4.5, 2023
over the life of the procurement and operation over the life forthcoming acceptable operating 4.6
building of the building FY14 ranges identified in OP
4.5

45
OP4 Purpose: NZEB operation requires efforts unique to standard practice. The tactics identify efforts related to submetering, O&M practices, and
occupant engagement.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

4 OP Balance O&M tasks Identify tradeoffs in O&M tasks for N/A Provide NZEB O&M task All N/A 2020-
4.7 related to NZEBs energy efficiency systems. Add new list and show balanced 2023
tasks for things such as PV cleaning time and cost
but remove tasks for reduced
maintenance such as lamp
replacement
5 OP Develop a Although some buildings may not NREL Demonstrate that a All OP 2025-
4.8 remediation plan for achieve an NZEB goal in one fiscal resources, building not achieving 4.4 2030
buildings not year because of unusual operating forthcoming the NZEB goal in
achieving NZE conditions, develop a remediation plan FY14 operations is corrected
for buildings that have not yet achieved to align with the project
net zero energy or do not achieve the goal
goal for two consecutive years

46
 Table 4-6 Tactics for CP2 (Achieve NZE)

CP2 Purpose: As a capstone category, these tactics define agency-level metrics for tracking progress toward NZE.

Tactic Description Resources Metric for success Climate and Tactic

Pilot Years
Priority

building pairs
type

4 CP Incorporate a subset OP1 and OP2; 100% of tactics have N/A A NZER building is All N/A 2020-
2.1 of tactics to achieve been successfully piloted designed and constructed 2025
NZEB design
5 CP Incorporate all OP1 through OP4; 100% of tactics have N/A An NZEB is designed, All N/A 2025-
2.2 applicable tactics to been successfully piloted constructed, and 2030
achieve NZEBs operated to the goal for 1
year

47
4.2 Application of Tactics to Achieve Organizational Proficiency
To focus on continuous improvement of NASA processes without placing excessive burdens on
any individual project, every new construction and major renovation project should be required
to pilot a subset of the tactics presented in Section 4.1. Piloting tactics differs from casual
implementation in that third-party experts should be included to guide the NASA team in tactic
implementation, and the metrics for success will be monitored using an energy performance
assurance process to understand the parameters for success and any barriers that need to be
turned into new tactics. The tactic selection should be a collaborative effort between the project
planning team, guided by an energy performance assurance process (to be defined as a NASA
role in CP1), ensuring that the project team has some level of comfort, if not expertise, with the
tactics selected.

1. Tactics in the energy efficiency proficiency category may be selected in schematic

design, once the design and construction team has been selected.
2. An energy consultant should be part of this team to develop cost optimization energy
models to refine energy efficiency tactic selection that might have been highlighted as
options through early, internal energy analysis (if performed).
3. Third-party training should be provided to help the NASA project team develop the skills
to address each tactic successfully.
4. Upon completion of each project, significant lessons learned should be shared with other
NASA stakeholders, especially those planning new projects, through a knowledge
database or formal mentoring program.
5. Finally, knowledge gained from each project should be used to refine best practice
documents and standard protocols within NASA, and shared with other agencies that may
be facing similar challenges. As best practices are solidified from multiple pilots of a
tactic, and NASA develops confidence with new techniques, specific tactics can be
checked off the list of candidate options for pilot projects, and instead be required for all
future projects. A summary of the overall process is shown in Figure 4-1.

48
Figure 4-1 Time-phased approach to demonstrating organizational proficiency using individual tactics

49
 For tracking purposes, progress toward proficiency should include three important milestones:
(1) completion of the first pilot project; (2) completion of enough pilot projects that application
issues are well understood; and (3) documentation of lessons learned and best practices in NASA
specifications or policy language. Occasionally, execution of pilot projects may reveal
unexpected challenges that require the application of new tactics to overcome.

50
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 5 Risks
Execution of this roadmap is predicated on the identification and mitigation of potential risks.
These include the following, among others that may be revealed as the first steps are taken on the
path to NZEBs:

Current NASA process gaps must be filled, such as that for NZEB performance assurance
at the agency and/or Center level.
Humid climates and load-intensive laboratories may present significant design challenges
and require exceptions to the EUI targets or a longer time frame between project
completion and NZEB operating status.
Changes in management processes, which may require solicitation of volunteers, and
rewards for early adopters.
Large-scale construction of NZEBs that rely heavily on RE may have a significant impact
on the electricity grid, which may require the use of load management techniques that are
developed in partnership with utilities and researchers.
Additional budget may be needed to cover additional time and resources needed to
implement the roadmap and pilot tactics, including possible costs for training, planning,
subcontracting, submetering, tracking, documentation, and O&M. These costs are
expected to subside once NZEB construction becomes standard NASA practice.
Changes in occupancy and building function may cause a well-designed NZEB to fall
short in operation, requiring ongoing commissioning or retrofit measures to sustain
NZEB performance.

51
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 References
NBI. (2012). Getting to Zero 2012 Status Update: A First Look at the Costs and Features of
Zero Energy Commercial Buildings. Research Report. Vancouver, WA: New Buildings
Institute, 46 pp. Accessed November 11, 2013:
http://newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/GettingtoZeroReport_0.pdf

Griffith, B.; Long, N.; Torcellini, P.; Judkoff, R. (2007) Assessment of the Technical Potential
for Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector. NREL Report No. TP-
550-41957. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 98 pp. Accessed
November 11, 2013: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf

Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. (2010). Net-Zero Energy Buildings: A Classification System Based on
Renewable Energy Supply Options. NREL Report No. TP-550-44586. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 21 pp. Accessed November 11, 2013:
http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/pdfs/44586.pdf

Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M.; Crawley, D. (2006). Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look
at the Definition. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings; August 2006,
Pacific Grove, CA. NREL/CP-550-39833. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 16 pp. Accessed November 11, 2013:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39833.pdf

52
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.