Green Building Advisory Committee meeting Oct. 22, 2024

Oct. 22, 2024 Agenda

10:00 - 10:25 a.m. Welcome (25 mins)

• Michael Bloom, GSA, DFO, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings
• Kinga Porst Hydras, GSA, Acting Director, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings
• Tadeh Issakhanian, GSA, Senior Advisor for Climate
• Ralph DiNola, Building Insights Group, GBAC Co-Chair
• Fernando Arias, HITT Contracting, “Acting” GBAC Co-Chair

10:25 - 10:45 a.m. GBAC Member Introductions (20 mins)

• Ralph DiNola, Fernando Arias

10:45 - 11:15 a.m. Governance (30 mins)

• Ralph DiNola, Bryan Steverson
• Bylaws approval
• Election for Chair/Co-Chair

11:15 - 12:15 p.m. Task Group Presentations and Recommendations (1 hr)

• Draft Buy Clean Implications Advice Letter (Fernando Arias, Facilitator/Presenter, Task Group Chair)

12:15 - 1:45 p.m. Working Lunch (1.5 hrs)

• Carbon Label Debrief (Holly Elwood, EPA)
• Health in Buildings Roundtable (HIBR) Debrief (Liz York, GSA)

1:45 - 2:45 p.m. Committee Presentations and Recommendations (1 hr)

• AI and Federal Buildings (Fernando Arias and Joyce Lee, Event Co-Hosts, Moderators)
• Health and Wellness (Whitney Gray and Jane Rohde, Event Co-Hosts)

2:45 - 3:00 p.m. Break (15 min)

3:00 - 3:30 p.m. What’s Next: Brainstorming Issues & Opportunities for 2025 (30 min)

3:30 - 3:45 p.m. Public Comments (15 min)

3:45 - 4:00 p.m. Wrap Up (15 min)

Meeting Minutes

Attendees

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Michael Bloom, GSA, DFO, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, went over the rules for the task group.

• GBAC members, who are appointed by the GSA Administrator, actively deliberate, vote, and decide the direction of the task group. Observers are welcome to make public comments at designated public comment times.
• All proceedings are open to the public. Task groups provide advice to the larger Green Building Advisory Committee. Advice given is not binding, which means it is the collective responsibility of members to make sure that advice is realistic and what is written into an advice letter has a good chance of being implemented, and that advice is feasible and practical.
• GBAC members are to add “GBAC” to the end of their Zoom name. Phones are to be muted when not speaking. Comments and questions should be added to the chat and will be addressed, if not in the current meeting, then they will be saved for the next meeting.
• Notes are to be posted on the GBAC page.

Tadeh Issakhanian, GSA, Senior Advisor for Climate, provided opening remarks:

• The new Senior Climate Advisor at GSA outlines key responsibilities focused on achieving federal climate goals, including net-zero federal buildings and 100% carbon-free electricity procurement by FY2027. He emphasizes leveraging funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for impactful projects.
• Observations from a recent New York Climate Week indicate a shift in the conversation around climate initiatives, highlighting that the necessary technology is now available and there’s good momentum alongside good policy. Two suggested discussion topics for future GBAC meetings include:
  1. Virtual Power Plants: Exploring the federal role in enabling these systems, enrolling in programs like demand response programs, and collaborating with utilities.
  2. Vehicle-to-Grid Technology: Leveraging the federal fleet of over 250,000 vehicles to enhance energy resiliency and support climate goals.

Kinga Hydras, GSA, Acting Director, Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, provided opening remarks:

• The Acting Director of GSA’s Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings welcomes the group and expresses gratitude for their impact work, noting a personal connection as someone who has been with GSA since the inception of GBAC and has benefited from the GBAC advice letters and knowledge.
• She highlights the group’s contributions in areas like health and wellness, building decarbonization, and green leasing, acknowledging the significant influence on federal initiatives.
• A heartwarming anecdote is shared about a panel discussion with Clay Nesler, where both discussed grid-integrated efficient buildings. Kinga reflects on how successful recommendations from GBAC were implemented in a GSA project, reinforcing the value of the group’s efforts. She concludes by thanking everyone for their work and wishing for a productive day.

Ralph DiNola, Building Insights Group, GBAC Co-Chair, provided opening remarks:

• GBAC Co-Chair welcomes everyone and expresses enthusiasm about meeting in person in Washington, D.C. He thanks the National Academies for hosting and acknowledges contributions from key members like Michael Bloom, Kevin Kampschroer, Byran Steverson, and Ken Sandler.
• As he concludes his second term, Ralph reflects on the rewarding experiences he’s had, particularly in crafting advice letters. He highlights the importance of today’s meeting, which will cover committee governance, nominate new members, present the work of various task groups, and suggest topics for future focus. He emphasizes the committee’s significant impact not only on GSA but on all federal buildings, and he appreciates the dedication of the professionals involved. Ralph looks forward to the continued progress of the committee’s efforts.

Fernando Arias, HITT Contracting, GBAC Acting Co-Chair, provided opening remarks:

• The acting co-chair of GBAC echoes Ralph’s sentiments about the impactful work of the committee. He emphasizes the significance of the committee’s efforts for GSA staff, who dedicate their time and expertise, as well as for partner agencies involved in the important initiatives the committee generates.

GBAC Member Introductions

• Fernando Arias, GBAC Acting Co-Chair, is Director of Sustainable Construction at HITT Contracting. With over two decades of experience in sustainable architecture, operations, and construction, he is passionate about advocating for healthier, more sustainable communities and equitable opportunities in the built environment. Fernando has been a GBAC member since 2020 and is focused on successfully completing the Buy Clean Implications advice letter by early 2025.
• Nicolas Baker is the Senior Sustainability Officer at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). CEQ works with other federal agencies to implement the President’s goals, executive orders, and mandates.
• Kevin Bates is with SHARP Development Company, which focuses on renovating buildings to carbon neutrality with a strong emphasis on health and wellness of occupants, low embodied carbon, and operational carbon neutrality.
• Gopinath Boray is the Acting Director of Real Property Management Services of Health and Human Services (HHS).
• Roger Chang is a partner with Buro Happold and is a mechanical engineer with 20+ years of experience, including leading the GBAC Electrification Task Group.
• Ralph DiNola, Co-Chair of GBAC, is with the New Buildings Institute.
• Projjal Dutta is with the New York MTA.
• Whitney Austin Gray is with the International Well Building Institute and has a background in public health. Her work is focused on translating research into actionable strategies within the built environment.
• Christine Harada is with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at OMB.
• Bill Healy is the Chief of the Building Energy and Environment Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Department of Commerce (NIST).
• Brent Kurapatske is with the Office of Facilities in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and is responsible for implementing the energy and sustainability requirements of EO 14057 in DOT’s buildings.
• Joyce Lee is with IndigoJLD Green + Health and has a focus on sustainability and wellness, with a background in architecture and environmental justice.
• Jonathan Petry is an architect in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Infrastructure, Monetization, and Resilience. He focuses on strengthening building centers and criteria, and enriching a training curriculum to sustain the full life cycle of building and facility operations.
• Jane Rohde is an architect with JSR Associates, who has experience in the healthcare and wellness sector, as well as in sustainability and advocacy extending into buildings and manufacturing.
• Mary Sotos is the Director of the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). FEMP empowers federal agencies to lead by example and provide training tools, technical assistance, grant funding, and communities of practice.
• Timothy Unruh is the executive director of the National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO), which is a group of companies working in energy retrofitting for buildings.
• David Wagner is with the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs.
• Conan Wilson is the Branch Manager for the Sustainable and Transportation Solutions Branch of the U.S. EPA and is responsible for the implementation of EOs 14057 and 14008.

Governance
Bryan Steverson of the Office of High-Performance Green Buildings of GSA covered Governance

Bylaws:

• Bylaw revision is at the final stage. Bylaws are essentially the committee’s rule book from what officer positions are, how meetings are run, how voting procedures work, etc. Bylaws outline and define how the committee itself operates.
• A copy of the revised Bylaws Draft was sent out by Michael Bloom on October 8th.
• Revisions include:
  • Allowing for a Co-Chair position for flexibility in leadership if the Chair cannot make it to a meeting, etc.
  • Spelling out the need for administrative and planning meetings that occur in between task group and full committee meetings, as well as defining the purpose of administrative/planning meetings to ensure compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
  • Updating terminology to align with GSA policies, such as using “task group” interchangeably with “subcommittee.”

Charter:

• GBAC was initially chartered back in 2011 and a charter renewal occurred earlier this year to realign language and term limits for members. This was the first time GSA has done the renewal process and the first time that there was an update/revision to GBAC’s charter.
• Revisions include:
  • Aligning language on what the committee’s actual authority is based on the Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 492.

Questions/Comments:

• An inquiry was made on continuous members of the committee and the possibility of extending terms from three to six years to keep key individuals on who are essential to the committee’s work.
  • GSA policy allows for a maximum of three-year terms, with a total cap of six consecutive years for all members. The committee must include representatives from specific federal agencies as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act, which designates 11 agencies and caps total membership at 25. This structure ensures both compliance with regulations and the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
• A clarification was raised regarding the committee’s efforts to diversify membership and engagement. The importance of exploring various pathways for participation is emphasized, noting that while task groups are a recommended format for developing advice letters, they shouldn’t be the only way for members to contribute. It is suggested that experts could join specific sessions relevant to their expertise without committing to a task group for every meeting. The need for flexibility in participation to encourage diverse viewpoints and expertise within the committee is also highlighted.
• Can GBAC members be re-enrolled after rolling off for a few years? The previous comments about the value of subject matter experts is echoed, emphasizing that their contributions can continue even as observers, participating in meetings as their schedules allow.
  • I’ll have to get back to you on the question of re-enrollment after a certain period of time.
• How do we distinguish or discern between task groups and subcommittees? Is a more formal structure needed for advice letter development versus gathering expert advice through other formats? Do the bylaws or GBAC Member’s Handbook need to be amended to include clarity on the terms and formal advice structure?
  • The committee has historically used “task groups” as a form of subcommittee, and there’s flexibility to continue that or adopt “subcommittee” as the formal term without needing to amend the bylaws.
• The desire to instead have workshops where advice is conveyed in a different format than a formalized advice letter was emphasized.
  • There is flexibility in structuring GBAC activities, however creating formal subcommittees would involve additional steps, such as appointing members specifically to those subcommittees. GSA has to appoint those members even though they’re already on the advisory committee itself.  
• If we wanted to create clarity around which name of the body, is that something that we need to put into the bylaws or can it be something that’s less formal like a handbook?
  • The committee has historically used “task groups” as a form of subcommittee, and there’s flexibility to continue that or adopt “subcommittee” as the formal term without needing to amend the bylaws.
• How are we defining diversity?
• Do members have to be US citizens?
  • Yes, but the answer needs to be confirmed.
• Do Chairs have to be from the federal government?
  • No, Chairs can be from the private sector.

Bylaws were accepted and approved unanimously by all GBAC members.

GBAC Chair/Co-Chair Nomination Process

• The announcement for new GBAC nominees will be posted in the coming week. Looking for nonfederal, private sector, academia, nonprofit nominations. Looking for at least 5 members.
• There will be time during the meeting today for Chair/Co-Chair nominations.
• The Chair/Co-Chair nomination process will be extended for another week.
• No election will take place during the meeting today.

Ralph DiNola provided advice to future nominees:

• It is a role not to be taken lightly. It requires a lot of time investment but it is very rewarding.

Task Group Presentations and Recommendations - Buy Clean Policy Implications and Recommendations for Federal Construction Projects

Background

• The Buy Clean Policy aims to reduce embodied carbon in federal construction projects.
• Established through the Inflation Reduction Act and Executive Order 14057.
• Focuses on procuring low embodied carbon (LEC) materials like asphalt, concrete, glass, and steel.
• Over 150 federal projects have already implemented the policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
• Funding is set to expire in 2026, making long-term sustainability a priority.

Challenges

• Funding Expiry: IRA funding supporting Buy Clean will expire in 2026, posing a challenge for continuity.
• Initial Costs: High costs of producing LEC materials and developing Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).
• Market Absorption: Slow adoption of LEC materials in some regions and industries.
• Data Gaps: Regional discrepancies in material data limit accurate life cycle assessments (LCAS). search Activate

Key Recommendations

• Support Smaller Suppliers: Provide technical and financial assistance to smaller suppliers to help them overcome cost barriers in adopting cleaner technologies and producing EPDs. This will boost market entry and participation from diverse industry players.
• Update Regional Data: Prioritize the collection and integration of region-specific data for key materials like steel and concrete. This will improve the accuracy of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), making environmental impact assessments more reliable and localized.

Environmental Implications

• Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Buy Clean policy aims to significantly reduce the embodied carbon in federal construction projects by promoting the use of materials with lower carbon footprints. This has the potential to decrease overall emissions from the construction sector, contributing to national and global climate goals.
• Increased Demand for Sustainable Materials: By prioritizing low embodied carbon (LEC) materials, the policy is likely to create a ripple effect across the construction industry, increasing demand for sustainable products and encouraging manufacturers to innovate and reduce the environmental impact of their products.
• Standardization and Transparency: The policy promotes the use of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which standardize the way environmental impacts of materials are reported. This transparency could lead to better-informed decision-making in both public and private sectors, pushing the entire industry towards greener practices.

Environmental Recommendations

• Refine EPD Standards: Improve accessibility and usability of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) by refining standards and providing technical and financial assistance, particularly to smaller suppliers, to scale the production of low embodied carbon (LEC) materials.
• Collaborate with EPA: Work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to integrate LEC Label requirements into federal procurement and the GSA P-100 Facilities Standards, ensuring that materials’ environmental impacts are fully considered throughout their lifecycle.
• Expand Incentives: Offer expanded incentives for regional contractors and material suppliers to develop and publish EPDs, encouraging broader nationwide adoption of LEC materials and driving alignment with environmental goals.
• Enhance Regional Data: Prioritize improving regional data for key materials like concrete and steel to increase the accuracy of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) and enable better decision-making in federal projects.
• Promote Industry Engagement: Increase collaboration with industry associations and expand educational initiatives to ensure greater adoption of Global Warming Potential (GWP)-compliant materials, promoting consistent environmental practices across regions.

Economic Implications

• Economic Growth and Job Creation: The policy is designed to stimulate the clean manufacturing sector, potentially leading to the creation of new jobs and economic opportunities, especially in green industries. The focus on American manufacturing also supports domestic industry growth.
• Cost Implications for Construction: While LEC materials are increasingly being offered at no additional cost, the transition might still involve initial financial outlays for manufacturers and suppliers. Over time, however, the standardization and scale of production could reduce costs, making sustainable materials more competitive with traditional ones.
• Market Shifts: The Buy Clean policy could alter market dynamics by giving a competitive edge to companies that produce and supply LEC materials. This might pressure other companies to adopt similar practices, leading to a broader transformation in the construction materials market.

Economic Recommendations

• Provide Technical Assistance: Support regional manufacturers with technical assistance to develop EPDs that reflect local conditions, fostering both economic growth and alignment with environmental goals.
• Expand Financial Incentives: Mitigate initial cost barriers by expanding financial incentives, such as grants and subsidies, to help small and medium-sized manufacturers adopt cleaner technologies and produce low embodied carbon materials.
• Promote Public-Private Partnerships: Foster public-private partnerships to stimulate innovation, providing businesses access to the capital needed for modernizing production processes and scaling the use of LEC materials.
• Encourage Regional Participation: Offer region-specific incentives and advanced purchasing strategies to encourage smaller contractors and manufacturers to participate in federal projects, helping to stimulate local economies and accelerate LEC material adoption.
• Align Procurement Guidelines: Ensure federal procurement guidelines align with EPA’s multi-tiered labeling system to maintain flexibility, support regulatory consistency, and promote long-term industrial innovation.

Industrial and Regulatory Implications

• Industry Transformation: The policy is expected to drive significant changes in how construction materials are produced and sourced, pushing industries to adopt cleaner, more sustainable practices. This could lead to the phasing out of less sustainable materials and processes.
• Regulatory Impact: The success of the policy may prompt further regulatory measures aimed at reducing carbon emissions in other sectors. It also sets a precedent for incorporating environmental considerations into federal procurement processes, which could influence state and local governments, as well as private sector practices.
• Innovation in Building Technologies: The policy encourages innovation by creating demand for new materials and technologies that meet LEC criteria. This could lead to advancements in building materials, construction techniques, and overall building efficiency.

Industrial and Regulatory Recommendations

• Develop Clear and Consistent Policies: Collaborate with industry stakeholders to create clear, consistent regulations and guidelines that address risk management concerns, streamline the certification process for LEC materials, and align with federal sustainability goals.
• Standardize Carbon Footprint Calculations: Work with federal agencies and industry experts to establish standardized methods for calculating the carbon footprint of recycled materials, promoting consistency in reporting and decision-making across the construction industry.
• Establish a Post-IRA Roadmap: Create a clear roadmap for the Buy Clean Policy beyond 2026, ensuring sustained momentum by standardizing green building procurement frameworks across federal agencies.
• Harmonize Certification Systems: Align the Buy Clean Policy with existing green building certification systems, ensuring industrial standards for LEC materials are consistently adopted across all federal procurement processes, facilitating a smooth regulatory transition.

Technological Implications

• Innovation in Manufacturing: The Buy Clean policy encourages the development of clean manufacturing technologies, leading to advancements in producing low embodied carbon (LEC) materials, which can improve the environmental performance of federal projects.
• Real-Time Tracking and Data: Investments in real-time tracking technologies will enhance the accuracy of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), allowing for better assessment of material sourcing and carbon footprints across supply chains.
• Pilot Projects and Cutting-Edge Materials: The policy promotes the use of pilot projects that integrate innovative materials and simulation models, helping federal agencies assess long-term environmental impacts and make informed procurement decisions.
• Regional Adaptation: New technologies must be tailored to regional differences in material sourcing and production, ensuring that advancements in LEC materials are accessible and applicable across different areas.

Technological Recommendations

• Prioritize Research and Development: Invest in academic research and development of clean manufacturing technologies, fostering partnerships with research institutions to accelerate innovation and make advanced technologies accessible to manufacturers.
• Launch Pilot Projects: Fund pilot projects that integrate cutting-edge materials and simulation models into federal procurement processes, enabling agencies to assess the long-term environmental impacts of materials and technologies.
• Enhance Real-Time Tracking: Improve the accuracy and timeliness of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) by investing in real-time tracking technologies for material sourcing and carbon footprints, ensuring the most current data is used in procurement decisions.
• Expand Certification Criteria: Broaden certification standards to include zero energy and zero carbon systems, ensuring that the latest technologies are incorporated into federal construction projects.

Social and Health Implications

• Healthier Communities: By reducing the emissions associated with construction materials, the policy contributes to better air quality and public health outcomes, particularly in communities near manufacturing plants and construction sites.
• Equity Considerations: There may be implications related to environmental justice, as the policy could drive investments in communities that have been historically impacted by industrial pollution. This could improve living conditions and create economic opportunities in these areas.

Social and Health Recommendations

• Prioritize Equity: Ensure that equity considerations are at the forefront of the Buy Clean Policy by making targeted investments in disadvantaged communities, promoting social benefits and reducing environmental health disparities.
• Invest in Green Job Training: Create training programs for green jobs in vulnerable communities, ensuring that these populations benefit from the economic opportunities generated by the Buy Clean Policy.
• Expand Manufacturer Outreach: Increase outreach to local manufacturers, ensuring they have the resources and support needed to participate in federal procurement, fostering equitable outcomes and reducing the environmental burden on underrepresented communities.

Long-term Implications

• Global Leadership: By implementing the Buy Clean policy, the U.S. could position itself as a global leader in sustainable construction, setting standards that other countries might follow.
• Sustainability as a Norm: If successful, the policy could normalize sustainability considerations in federal procurement and across the construction industry, making sustainable practices a standard rather than an exception.

Long-term Recommendations

• Regularly Update the Policy: Continuously update the Buy Clean Policy to reflect advancements in global supply chains and material sourcing, ensuring long-term sustainability and relevance in a rapidly evolving market.
• Collaborate with International Stakeholders: Work closely with international partners to align the Buy Clean Policy with global decarbonization efforts, positioning the U.S. as a leader in sustainable construction and sharing best practices worldwide.
• Invest in Regional Data and Tools: Continue investing in regional data collection and advanced technological tools that support informed, long-term decision-making, ensuring that the policy remains adaptable to new challenges and opportunities.
• Ensure Flexible Labeling Systems: Collaborate with the EPA to regularly update the Low Embodied Carbon Label criteria, expanding its scope to accommodate technological and environmental changes, keeping the Buy Clean Policy at the forefront of global sustainability efforts.

Where This Work is Headed

• Long-term success depends on adapting to new technologies, market conditions, and data improvements.
• The policy can set the U.S. as a global leader in sustainable construction through continued innovation.
• Collaboration with international stakeholders will align Buy Clean with global decarbonization efforts. Sustained investment in regional data collection and technological tools will ensure adaptability and effectiveness.

Conclusion

• Buy Clean is driving the transformation of the federal construction industry toward sustainability.
• Key challenges include funding continuity, data gaps, and market adoption.
• Recommendations focus on incentivizing innovation, improving data accuracy, and fostering equity.
• The future of the Buy Clean Policy holds immense potential for long-term environmental and economic impact.

Questions/Comments

• I understand the urgency of getting this institutionalized because of the 2026 timeline, between now and the post-IRA roadmap and the need for a roadmap right away…what is the timeline for institutionalizing and normalizing these recommendations before funding runs out?
  • EPA’s labeling program will achieve half of the recommendations listed above by catalyzing regional data improvements, ease of adoption, etc.
  • There is a nuisance that should be reflected in the Advice Letter, which is that the EPA was provided two sets of funding: one for the labeling program and that money ends in FY26, and the other was to provide grants to help businesses and that funding ends in FY31.
  • EPA will provide technical and financial assistance to small suppliers. There is a major issue with timing associated with the labeling program.  
• With the advent of AI and blockchain feeding into real-time tracking, how can GSA invest in innovative machine learning and AI to track all of these activities to have real-time data that feeds back into EPDs to further reduce emissions?
  • I think the federal government’s government-wide actions on hiring Chief AI Officers definitely warrants the GSA studying this operationally internally. I think it’s outside of the scope of our advice letter and our task group’s focus, but it certainly is a nice way of making sure we’re bridging across those efforts.  
• Health and Wellness:
  • Encourage us and honor that these recommendations should reflect sustainability and health - consider rewording to use sustainability and health throughout.
  • Continued research of the potential impacts on health is encouraged
  • Partnering with organizations like the CDC can help with better implementing health and wellness into the Advice Letter
• Diversity:
  • Expand upon disadvantaged communities
  • Disadvantaged communities have a challenge of not having access to these lower embodied carbon materials
    • Bringing in OSHA and construction workers into the conversation
  • EJ tools need to be included in the Advice Letter
  • A focus on the social governance and the workers at construction and project sites should be included
• GSA should not underestimate the opportunity to influence the private sector with these recommendations. Include in the Advice Letter how to enable the private sector to have access to this information to bridge the information gap between the GSA and private sector
• One of the challenges we have seen is not if materials are available but how do we get them onto the job site where they are needed.
• Consider sustainable construction sites so we can benefit not just from clean materials but clean construction sites as well.
• GSA Pilot Projects:
  • Success stories that came from the 150 pilot projects
    • We could include an Appendix with a pros/cons lists or lessons learned
  • The 150 projects that are being referred to as “pilot projects” are actually GSA projects.
• EPD/PCR literacy needs to be included in the Advice Letter in an Appendix
• Buy Clean also represents the needs for transparency in data and improved data quality
• Was there any intersection with the Carbon Leadership Forum? If not, there could be a key opportunity to work with them on this right now since this has been their focus.
  • The fact sheet on their website has been referenced, but engaging in a conversation is a great idea.
• How does this information get to the acquisition community?
• The Life Cycle Perspective (Life Cycle Thinking) section of SFTool.gov is a great place to go for EPD/PCR literacy. See https://sftool.gov/plan/402/environmental-product-declarations-epds

Working Lunch - EPA’s Low Embodied Carbon Construction Materials Program

Embodied carbon of construction materials accounts for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) directed EPA to:

1. Develop a determination for ‘Substantially Lower Embodied Carbon Construction Materials” for GSA and FHWA
2. Provide grant funding and technical assistance to increase and improve environmental product declarations (EPDs).
3. Create a label to help purchasers identify and procure lower embodied carbon construction materials.

Initial Focus Materials:

• Steel
• Asphalt
• Concrete
• Flat Glass

Label Program Implementation Approach:

• Target Largest GHG Emissions - Initially focus on GHG emissions in the production stage, consistent with the IRA and current data available in the market.
• Highlight Top Performers - Identify top performers using a tiered labeling format, informed by public input.
• Ensure Data Consistency - Labeled products will have EPDs built under North American PCRs.
• Expand Over Time - Allows products and materials to move through the process at their own speed and for additional products and materials to be added over time.

Label Program Implementation Phases:

Phase I: Data Quality Improvement - Advance Robust Environmental Product Declarations

• Draw on ongoing data improvements to Federal LCA Commons and fill existing data gaps.
• Determine PCRs meeting EPA’s PCR Criteria.
• Collect third-party-verified EPDs and industry benchmarks.

Phase II: Threshold Setting - Set Thresholds for Low Embodied Carbon Materials

• Develop thresholds for each material/product type, considering performance requirements, regionality and viable industry averages.
• Finalize thresholds, informed by stakeholder input via public comments.

Phase III: Labeling - Launch Low Embodied Carbon Label

• Label materials/products meeting thresholds using EPDs.
• Launch publicly accessible registry of labeled materials/products.
• Highlight labeled materials in other platforms, federal programs, and procurement policies.

Threshold Setting and Tiered Labeling:

Best - Product GWP under a value, determined in Phase Il, that represents the cutting edge of low carbon products available in the market.

Better - Product GWP under a value, determined in Phase Il, that is lower than an industry and/or regional average but higher than the “best” product GWP value.

Good - Product GWP under a value, determined in Phase Il, that is lower than an industry and/or regional average but higher than the “better” product GWP value.

EPA is now in the process of putting together thresholds to release for public comment in Spring of next year.

Questions/Comments:

• On slide 9, you referenced the different phases. Can you please speak on the timeline?:
  • 6/7 resources for data improvement have been issued and . Phase I is actively in play. Phase II is being built out, such as the conformity assessment.
• Do you see a time soon enough when the label will become an actual requirement of federal contracts?
• How do you brand this program to get the word out about this program?
  • We are in the process of drafting the branding and marketing strategy, draft coming out at the end of November. This will include a new name for the program.

Health in Buildings Roundtable Update

What is the Health in Buildings Roundtable (HiBR)?

• History: Initiated by Architect Charles Blumberg (NIH) in the 1990s, HiBR promoted the conducting of research to understand strategies that make buildings healthy and the sharing of best practices for healthier facility construction and operations among members.
• In 2006, the focus broadened to include collecting past research and encouraging implementation of best practices throughout the real estate industry through open calls and conferences that anyone could attend.
• In 2023, NIH began to look at opportunities to transfer the entity within the Federal government but there is no dedicated federal agency for healthy built environments. This is why the National Academies became involved to bring all relevant organizations together for a collaborative conversation in the format of a roundtable.

Summary of Roundtable Mission: Bring together building owners, architects, designers, engineers, public health professionals, researchers, policy makers, technology developers, codes and standards organizations, and other stakeholders to forward and share tools and best practices for protecting and promoting health through built environment interventions.

Challenge: Past efforts centered around discussion and information sharing at the conceptual level with less emphasis on actionable strategies and tools. Even so, discussions have promoted change and progress for members and industry as a whole.

Future of HiBR: Members have asked for a focus on tangible strategies, solutions, data, and case studies with a decided bent toward action. They ask the next iteration of the roundtable to endeavor to talk less and do more. Potential members fund the administration of the efforts to allow for more focus and support for member needs. The effort needs additional sponsors to move forward.

Overview:

• Why focus on Health in Buildings?
  • Architects, designers, and real estate professionals have a greater ability to improve public health than medical professionals.
  • When we build better buildings we give individuals better choices to choose from so they make better choices and change their habits.
• How has GSA approached Health in Buildings?
  • GSA for many years has been working on healthy buildings and you can see it in things like studies and projects focused on understanding more about circadian lighting, and in the systems and tools GSA has created like SF Tool.
  • GSA creates tools to help our project teams, project managers, or portfolio managers build better buildings and build healthier buildings for all occupants and the public surrounding our buildings.
• What do project teams need next?
  • GSA has asked their teams what areas of health they need more tools and support on. Two main focus areas that came up were acoustics and thermal comfort. Similarly, GSA asked about areas of health emphasis for distributed teams when teams have people in different locations, including the home environment. Specific questions of how do we increase physical activity for distributed teams? How do we increase ergonomics and isolation and loneliness for these distributed teams? are being addressed.
• Why work as a roundtable?
  • The reason to work as a roundtable is because we need all of these perspectives of research, policy/standards development, product and project design/procurement, project development, and construction/O&M to help us get to better policies that help us build better buildings.

Ongoing and potential technical topics and working groups:

• Indoor Air Quality Workshop
• Circadian Lighting Workshop
• Health in Buildings Scholars/Fellows
• Annual HiBR Symposium
• Acoustics
• Thermal Comfort
• Isolation/Social Connectedness
• Ergonomics

Areas of opportunity:

• Design, technology, management, and behavioral strategies employed in buildings to improve health
• Identifying knowledge gaps to improve building performance and occupant health
• providing input into the roundtable focus areas and outcomes
• Knowledge-sharing of emerging guidance and best practices with diverse group of engineering and health organizations and researchers
• Assisting in developing project requirements and research implementation plans
• Recognition as committed to health and wellness through healthy buildings

**Anyone interested in joining the roundtable or providing resources/sponsorship should contact Brittany Segundo at bsegundo@nas.edu and Cameron C. Oskvig at coskvig@nas.edu

Questions/Comments:

• Has anyone on the Roundtable been in coordination with the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS)?
• Yes, we are currently coordinating a conversation with them.
• How and when/where can interested parties from federal agencies, members of the public, private industry, etc. be involved in this process?
• The goal of the roundtable is to bring together industry, government, and academics.
• Members of the roundtable are nominated, so the sponsors are members of the roundtable. The National Academies will look at the makeup of the roundtable and nominate academics and industry people and codes and standards that they feel are necessary to have a unique and diverse discussion to help move the roundtable towards its goals. Then those that are nominated will be evaluated by the National Academies’ governing body.
• Roundtables do not issue reports or provide recommendations, but they do push forward work, define research agendas, and identify paths for academics and industry to work together.
• The National Academies are looking for industry partners, and in particular with GSA, we are looking for portfolio owners that can bring to bear technologies, processes, and applications in their buildings and provide data back to an academic community. In addition, we also may call upon our colleagues in the behavioral sciences, which are absolutely necessary to be part of it.
• How does GSA plan to engage NIH and CDC going forward? What other organizations and individuals can we bring to the table?
  • GSA has engaged contacts at CDC, HHS, NIH, FDA, and IHS. CDC has had a couple of divisions interested and have committed to potential funding. We would love to see HHS and NIH make a similar commitment.
  • Comment: DOD is definitely interested in supporting this and has released a memo [PDF] that it is a national security imperative for us to focus on the physical, emotional, and cognitive well-being of the people that serve this country in the DOD.

AI and Federal Buildings Meeting Overview

Key Takeaways from Zach Whitman:

• Leverage AI Technologies to Enhance Federal Buildings: Start integrating AI tools like machine learning and generative AI to improve design, construction, and operation processes. Use machine learning for predictive maintenance and energy management, and adopt generative AI for innovative design and simulation to increase efficiency and sustainability.
• Prioritize Ethical and Responsible AI Implementation: Develop and adhere to clear guidelines that ensure transparency, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Align your AI initiatives with regulations such as EO 14110 and EO 2410 to protect rights and safety, and engage in ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to address ethical considerations.
• Collaborate Across Disciplines to Maximize AI Benefits: Engage with subject matter experts, the public, and diverse communities to foster inclusivity and accessibility in AI applications. Work collectively to identify and overcome challenges, ensuring that AI serves as a tool to enhance sustainability and creates smarter, safer, and more equitable federal buildings.

Key Takeaways: Baseline and Level Set

• Implement AI to Optimize Federal Buildings: Leverage AI technologies like Machine Learning and Generative AI to enhance energy efficiency, shorten project delivery, enhance design processes, predictive maintenance, and smart building operations for sustainability and cost savings. Build on past success in building automation.
• Proactively Address AI Pitfalls: Mitigate risks like high energy consumption, grid security, AI hallucinations, and data privacy issues by establishing robust security measures and ethical guidelines aligned with federal policies.
• Understand AI Fundamentals: Machine learning vs. Generative AI: Grasp the basics of AI by distinguishing between Machine Learning-which analyzes data to make predictions and optimizations-and Generative AI-which creates new content and simulations. This understanding will help you effectively apply the appropriate AI technologies in federal decarbonization and building projects.
• Collaborate to Harness AI Effectively: Engage with cross-disciplinary teams to understand and apply AI solutions responsibly, maximizing benefits in design, construction, and operations while addressing potential challenges collectively.

Key Takeaways: AI for Project Delivery from Stephen Hagan of Hagan Technologies

• Leverage AI to Enhance Sustainability in Federal Buildings: Utilize AI tools to analyze data across the federal building portfolio, extracting actionable insights to reduce energy consumption and emissions for improved sustainability and efficiency.
• Embrace Digital Processes to Streamline Project Delivery: Adopt AI and digital technologies in line with GSA’s P100 Facility Standards to enable self-checking for compliance, enhance quality control, and facilitate data driven decision-making, reducing reliance on manual methods.
• Collaborate and Innovate with AI Resources: Engage with collaborative platforms and design technology awards to stay informed about AI advancements in architecture and construction, contribute to shared knowledge, and explore how AI can transform project delivery through enhanced digital twins and other innovations.

Key Takeaways: AI for Project Delivery from Sean Young of NVIDIA

• Adopt AI to Enhance Productivity and Automate Tasks: Implement AI solutions to augment work processes, reducing redundant and tedious manual tasks. This will enhance efficiency and revitalize productivity without replacing jobs.
• Develop AI Skills and Integrate AI into Existing Tools: Invest in understanding and adopting AI skills to effectively implement AI solutions. Integrate AI into tools like BIM and transition toward AI-driven design inputs to optimize space plans and improve workflows.
• Leverage Existing Data and AI Models for Actionable Insights: Utilize accumulated data by fine-tuning existing AI models or employing methods like Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). This approach can generate actionable intelligence to enhance business specific operations without the need to build AI models from scratch.

Key Takeaways: AI for Project Delivery from Virginia Senf of Autodesk

• Invest in High-Quality Data and BIM Standards: Validate and structure your BIM data to ensure consistency and accuracy. High-quality data is crucial for AI to generate reliable solutions, reduce risks, and enhance the effectiveness of your design and construction projects.
• Leverage AI for Early Decision-Making and Outcome-Based Design: Utilize AI tools to define project outcomes upfront and explore optimal design options early in the project lifecycle. This approach allows you to evaluate trade-offs, reduce costs, improve sustainability, and make informed decisions that enhance productivity.
• Embrace AI as a Collaborative Partner to Enhance Creativity and Efficiency: Integrate AI into your workflows to automate repetitive tasks and unlock new possibilities in design and construction. By viewing AI as a co-creation tool, you can harness underutilized data, streamline processes, and deliver better projects faster and more sustainably.

Key Takeaways: AI for Facilities Management - Overcome Challenges in AI Integration and Adoption

• Keiva Rodriques: Foster a Culture Shift for AI Adoption Encourage a culture shift within your organization to embrace AI technologies. Support staff training and create an environment where employees feel comfortable engaging with data and AI tools to bridge the cultural gap and ensure successful AI integration.
• Lawrence Melton: Achieve Organizational Alignment for AI Implementation. Align all stakeholders-including CIOs, construction teams, facility organizations, and program offices-to overcome complexities in adopting AI. Address data privacy concerns and ensure everyone shares common goals for energy savings and operational efficiency.
• Tim Unruh: Balance Project Timelines with AI Adoption Foster a culture of adaptability and open communication within teams to balance tight project schedules with the careful planning and training needed for effective AI integration, addressing adoption challenges proactively.

Key Takeaways: AI for Facilities Management - Enhance Operations with AI Technologies

• Keiva Rodriques: Implement AI for Proactive Asset Management Use AI tools like drones for inspections to collect asset data proactively. This enhances preventive maintenance, minimizes disruptions, and improves decision-making in maintenance and renovation projects.
• Lawrence Melton: Transform Facilities Management with AI Integrate AI and building automation technologies to evolve facilities management models. Focus on predictive maintenance to improve operational efficiency and achieve significant labor and operating cost savings.
• Tim Unruh: Leverage AI Analytics to Improve Project Performance Utilize AI to analyze project manuals and historical data, improving site efficiency and predicting safety issues. Aggregate energy data to identify performance problems early and enhance overall project efficiency.

Key Takeaways: AI for Facilities Management - Invest in Workforce Development for Future AI Trends

• Keiva Rodriques: Support Staff Education and Embrace New Technologies Invest in staff education on AI and support employees pursuing AI-focused learning. Explore innovations like microgrids and AI-integrated design tools to retain talent and prepare for future technological advancements.
• Lawrence Melton: Develop Comprehensive Training Programs Create robust, ongoing training initiatives to equip your workforce with necessary AI and automation skills. Transform traditional roles into tech-savvy positions to create a pipeline of qualified candidates to meet future demands and ensure effective use of AI technologies.
• Tim Unruh: Equip Staff to Utilize AI Effectively Emphasize training staff in AI technologies to enhance project performance and safety. Ensure employees are equipped to use AI tools effectively, supporting organizational goals and advancing industry practices.

Questions/Comments:

• Where is the federal government in terms of their use of AI (5%, 90%, etc.)?
  • 60+ Chief AI Officers have been hired by the Federal Government as of today.
• Data scientists could be helpful in the AI discussion.

Resources:

• https://ai.gov/
• https://ai.gov/naiac/

GBAC Health and Wellness Update

History of GBAC Health & Wellness:

• The 2017 Advice Letter provided recommendations to promote improved cognitive function, staff satisfaction, improvement of health conditions, reduction of health care costs, reduction of absenteeism and presenteeism, and taxpayer savings.
• The initial programming design focused on operations of buildings (focus on predominantly existing/leased spaces).
• A guidance crosswalk was developed supporting Guiding Principles and provision of criteria to assist meeting the goal of including Health & Wellness into programming, design, and operations.

On September 16th, International Well Building Institute (IWBI) hosted the 1st and inaugural Healthy Building Policy Summit in partnership with Georgetown University. Panels included topics such as accessibility, neurodiversity and thinking about more inclusive design strategies, schools, indoor air quality (IAQ) and indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and partnerships with industry.  

Knowledge Building Collaborative Approach that came out of the Healthy Building Policy Summit:

• Developing policy as an opportunity, including education on importance, consensus on nomenclature and approach, change management plan, and monitoring of outcomes.
• Collaboration to include public health connection to the built environment
• Consideration of a portfolio manager approach to IAQ/IEQ
• Utilization of technology
• Could be similar approach as taken to the development of policy and actions through the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act
• Building code updates
• Communication plan

Recommended Action:

• GBAC collaboratively works with the HiBR, FFC, and IWBI to further IAQ/IEQ agenda for improvement and incorporation into policy, processes, codes, and operations.
• Convenings are available to all GBAC members as well as other SMEs and interested parties.
• Based on the outcomes and summaries of the Convenings, create an Action Plan.
• Once completed, discuss options for creating a GBAC Health & Wellness Task Group and what the most effective deliverable(s) would be (e.g., education program, advice letter, etc.)
• Anticipated timeline: 12-24 months

Key Discussion Points:

• Health and wellness is not just IAQ and IEQ, it is inclusive to thinking about mental health, behavior, issues around community, and thus, it brings in a really diverse group of people such as sustainability experts, architects, engineers, and behavioral therapists.
• The longer that experts take to determine the different terms we use for air quality, the longer we give the public an excuse to not take action. First and foremost, we need to make sure that we are unifying our efforts to continue to build this out.
• You do not have to be an expert in health and wellness to get involved and support these efforts; different perspectives are welcomed.
• The value of engaging experts, particularly from various architectural and sustainability organizations, to better understand the impacts of materials used in construction is emphasized.
• Expanding discussions beyond equity to include disadvantaged populations and lifecycle assessments for workers involved in material use is encouraged.
• The need for incorporating health-related language into green certification programs is stressed and the importance of ongoing research to identify potential negative health impacts as initiatives progress is highlighted.
• It is suggested that OSHA is involved in conversations about job site conditions to enhance safety and health considerations.

Questions/Comments:

• How do we have an energy efficient or net zero building that also is promoting human health and well-being?
  • LEDs and circadian lighting is a great example of how we can have an energy efficient building that is also promoting human health and well-being.
• Do you feel like holding the standards of energy efficiency and health standards up and the case example projects achieving those standards are good examples?
  • There is a need for clearer language to make health and energy use in buildings more accessible to the public. The pandemic influenced shifts in public attitudes and priorities, such as the increased recognition of outdoor space access in healthcare and long-term care settings. It is important to look at the simple case studies and lessons learned from these real-world changes.
• How do you envision narrowing the focus on a deliverable? Am I understanding that you are wanting to move away from the Advice Letter model? What would you like to see as an outcome?
  • The next step for this group will be putting forward a subcommittee on health and wellness, where members can express interest and collaborate on determining key focus areas. Today was not intended to provide a final solution but to lay the groundwork for future work.
  • The next phase will involve organizing a task group and utilizing the HIVR (Health and Wellness Research) platform for collaboration and ongoing updates. The goal is to gather continuous feedback, which could lead to solid recommendations. This might take the form of an advice letter or a guidance document, though the exact outcome is not yet defined.

What’s Next: Brainstorming & Opportunities for 2025 (Sorted)

1. Decarbonization and Emissions Reduction
   • Buy Clean Initiatives Task Group (finalize advice letter)
   • Construction Phase Emissions (A4-A5)
   • Sustainable construction sites and sustainable construction emissions
   • Demolition and disposal phase emissions (C1-4) and EPA’s Warm Tool
   • Alternative construction methods (e.g., additive construction, offsite construction techniques)
   • Whole Building LCAs and EPDs (interaction and emission reduction opportunities)
   • Designing for a Circular Economy
   • Enhance reuse of materials at scale and commercialized
   • Accelerating retrofit/equipment replacement rates
2. Health, Wellness, and Resilience
   • Health and Wellness Task Group
   • AI and Federal Buildings with a focus on health and wellness
   • Resilience and innovation (platforms for sharing stories)
   • Retrofitting urbanity and green leasing
3. Energy and Power Management
   • Incorporating electric vehicles intelligently as a power management strategy; electrifying central plants
   • Virtual power plants
   • Vehicle to grid
4. Cybersecurity and Technology Integration
   • Operations Technology (OT) Cybersecurity during design, construction, and commissioning
   • How the US government uses legacy data and manages data from multiple organizations
   • Database interoperability
   • AI and the challenges of data aggregation and analysis
5. Retrofitting and Building Efficiency
   • Can we combine retrofits and currently occupied buildings in a convening about retrofitting urbanity?
   • How do we accelerate rates of retrofit/equipment replacement?

Public Comments

• There were no comments made during Public Comment time.

Close

Any additional questions should be sent to GBAC@gsa.gov and Michael Bloom (michael.bloom@gsa.gov).