|
Evidence is growing that sustainable design provides financial
rewards for the Air Force. This substantiation will continue to grow
as we move forward toward compliance with the Energy Policy Act of
2005, Executive Order (EO)13423 and the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Sustainable sites typically have lower
annual costs for energy, water, maintenance/repair, churn
(reconfiguring space because of changing needs), and other operating
expenses. To quote Major General Eulberg in his presentation to the
Government Affairs Committee, 10 May 2007,”Increased efficiency will
eventually yield significant cost savings, better service to our
customers”.
Some sustainable design features have higher first costs, but the
payback period for the incremental investment often is short and the
lifecycle cost typically lower than the cost of more traditional
buildings. The Air Force has acknowledged the additional costs
associated with meeting LEED Silver certification goals for all
vertical construction projects, with climate control, by allowing a
separate line item on the programming documentation under primary
facility costs. These costs will be programmed at no more than 2% of
the primary facility cost and identified as “SDD & EPAct05”. When
the costs exceed 2%, an explanation may be provided in block 10 of
the 1391.
In addition to direct cost savings, sustainable design can
provide indirect economic benefits to the Air Force. For instance,
sustainable site design can promote better health, comfort,
well-being and productivity of building occupants, which can reduce
levels of absenteeism and increase productivity. Sustainable
elements can offer the installation economic benefits from longer
building lifecycles to the improved ability to attract and retain
quality personnel. We can also expect greater levels of leadership
support and project funding for sustainable projects as the Air
Force as a whole moves toward compliance with the aforementioned
Executive Orders and other legislation.
- Affordable features:
Facilities built to green standards cost less
to operate due to energy efficiency. Personnel also save because
they have a reduced need for an automobile to access work,
recreation, shops and services.
- Reduced infrastructure costs:
By nature, compact development
minimizes costs related to utility infrastructure. Case study
research conducted by the EPA found public infrastructure costs for
development close to city centers were just 10 percent of those for
projects on the suburbs. Taking this lesson from the civilian
community and applying it to development within the dense cantonment
area of an Air Force installation rather than on the periphery of
the base could result in a cumulative savings of 8 percent in
development costs by 2025 (1).
(1) Hagler Bailley Services Inc. 1999. The Transportation and
Environmental Impacts of Infill Versus Greenfield Development. US
EPA.
- Lower life cycle costs:
Facility life cycle engineering represents
the most effective balance of cost to construct; cost to start up;
cost to operate; and the users’ cost to perform the intended
function of the facility over its useful life. UFC 4_030_01 dictates
that project budgets be based on design alternatives with the lowest
total life-cycle cost. Determining the total life-cycle cost is
achieved through the NIST Handbook 135 or through Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis (LCCA).
| 
