Proceedings of the International Symposium on

Sustainable Systems and Technologies, v2 (2014)

Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy
for Buildings

Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh,
949 Benedum Hall, 3700 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261-2294; Phone (412) 624-9870;
Fax (412) 624-0135; email: sga8@pitt.edu
Melissa M. Bilec, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh,
153 Benedum Hall, 3700 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261-2294; Phone (412) 648-8075;
Fax (412) 624-0135; email: mbilec@pitt.edu


Abstract

We investigated the environmental and economic impacts of renewable energy (i.e., solar via
photovoltaic) produced on-site for high performance buildings to understand their potential
building and systems-level impacts. This research is done in the context of better understanding
the decrease of on-site renewables in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
version 4 rating system. Specifically, in the most recent LEED version 4, a building that
produces 1% of its energy requirements receives 1 point; 5%, 2 points; and 10%, 3 points.
While in the previous version of LEED (version 2009) the on-site renewable points available was
from 1 to 7. A case study building was first developed using Building Information Modeling (BIM)
and located in 400 sites around the world. All building materials that influence the thermal
characteristics (e.g., wall insulation) and other variables were changed for each location to
comply with ASHRAE 90.1 as required by LEED. Next, a baseline energy model was built for
each site using Autodesk Green Building Studio to compute the energy usage. After that, each
energy model was developed to compute the solar energy produced on-site available within the
building footprint and regional climate. A life-cycle approach and cost analysis were then used
to analyze the environmental and economic impacts while considering different energy sources
(e.g. Coal, Nuclear etc.) and associated prices at each site for the remaining energy needs of
the respective buildings. Recommendations for LEED were developed to change the
requirements of renewable energy generation to be a percentage of what actually available on-
site, instead of a fixed percentage of the energy needed by the building. Likewise, buildings with
higher environmental impacts due to the type of conventional energy source should be required
to achieve higher levels of renewable utilization based on associated impacts.



Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Melissa Bilec and Jun-Ki Choi, co-editors.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.

Copyright 2014 by Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, Melissa M. Bilec Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.

Cite as: Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy for Buildings.
Proc. ISSST, Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, Melissa M. Bilec. http://dx.doi.org/doi.info v2 (2014)
Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy for Buildings

Introduction

The international Energy Agency (IEA) predicts high-growth in the renewable energy utilization
in all sectors with the highest increases in the building sector. By 2035, it is expected that
buildings will acquire about 34% of final energy consumption from renewable sources (excluding
traditional biomass) compared to 23% in the industrial sector and 15% in the transportation
sector (IEA 2010). Furthermore, in the next couple of years, renewables are expected to
surpass natural gas as the second-largest source of power generation and approach coal as the
leading source by 2035 (IEA 2013). Renewable energy plays a big role in the sustainable
development through the achievement of its goals. Priorities in the relationship between
renewable energy and sustainable development vary from one country to another, depending
on many domestic and international issues (Sathaye, Lucon et al. 2012). In the building design
and construction industry, there are many programs that support sustainable development by
incorporating the use of renewable energy. One of the internationally recognized initiatives is
U.S. Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) providing a third-party verification system for green buildings.

LEED was developed by the USGBC through several versions over the past twenty years
starting in 1994 and led to launch of LEED in 1998. The pilot version LEED v1.0 was released in
1998 targeting only new construction and new commercial office buildings. LEED evolved
continuously from the first pilot version LEED v1.0 through the LEED v2.0 in 2001; LEED v2.1 in
2003; LEED v2.2 in 2005; LEED v3.0 in 2009 and finally LEED v4.0 in 2013. Nowadays, LEED
has extended to become a more comprehensive structure with global alternative compliance
path, including many rating systems.

The renewable energy has been a LEED focus since the beginning through a credit for buildings
that use renewable energy systems on-site and additional credit for a contract with green power
providers. LEED intent was to encourage and recognize increasing levels of renewable
technologies on and off site to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with
fossil fuel energy use. In the renewable energy credit, the requirements and number of points
have changed from one version to another as shown in Table 1. On the other hand, the green
power credits requirement had rose and then fell, then rose again, where it was not specified in
v2.0, 50% in v2.1, 35% in v2.2 and v3.0 and finally 50%-100% in the last version v4.0. Duration
of the green power contract was not specified in version v2.0 while it was two years in all later
versions except the latest version LEED v4.0 where it has been increased to five years.

Several other notable LEED changes (i.e. credits/points weighing, referenced standard). In the
LEED 2009 (v3.0), life cycle assessment (LCA) considerations were adapted to address the
imbalance of unequal importance of categories that have significant environment and economic
consequences. The points share of LEEDs Energy and Atmosphere (EA) section changed from
25% in (v2.0, v2.1 and v2.2) to 32% in v3.0 and finally to 30% in v 4.0. Within the EA section the
points share of renewable changed from 24% in (v2.0, v2.1 and v2.2) to 26% in v3.0 and
currently to 15% in v 4.0. In the other side and through Table 1, we can see a process of
tightening and loosening due to many factors; such as changing the energy referenced standard
which change considerably the amount of energy consumption. LEED strategy was to exceed
the energy code as prerequisite by a fixed percentage of saving; the prerequisites are: 0% in
v2.0, 10% in v3.0 and 5% in v4.0. Accordingly, buildings can achieve incremental points when
they go beyond the prerequisite. The credit that contains those incremental points (EA c2:
Optimize Energy Performance) represents more than half of the points in EA and the biggest
credit compared to all other LEEDs credits. Recently, LEED started to add some credits with
strategic dimension regarding renewable energy. These additions represented as pilot credit to
Sami G. Al-Ghamdi and Melissa M. Bilec

make the building structure capable of supporting renewable energy technologies like planned
photovoltaic technologies on the roof.

Table 1: Development of renewable energy requirements in different versions of LEED-NC
Version Credit Title Requirements

Points Share Summary of changes and notes
LEED v2.0, 2001
(USGBC 2001)

EAc2.1
EAc2.2
EAc2.3
Renewable
Energy
5%
10%
20%
1
2
3
18% of
EA points
Energy referenced standard start with ASHRAE 90.1-1999, the
total EA points represent 25% of the total points in LEED v2.0
Credit EAc2 first released as Renewable Energy with three
possible points.
Credit EAc6 first released as Green Power with one possible
point.
EAc6 Green Power 0% for
2-Y Contract
1 6% of
EA points
LEED v2.1, 2003
(USGBC 2003)
EAc2.1
EAc2.2
EAc2.3
Renewable
Energy
5%
10%
20%
1
2
3
18% of
EA points
Energy referenced standard remain as ASHRAE 90.1-1999, the
total EA points represent 25% of the total points in LEED v2.1.
Overall no substantive changes, except for defining the required
percentage for green power of 50%.
EAc6 Green Power 50% for
2-Y Contract
1 6% of
EA points
LEED v2.2, 2005
(USGBC 2005)
EAc2.1
EAc2.2
EAc2.3
On-Site
Renewable
energy
2.5%
7.5%
12.5%
1
2
3
18% of
EA points
Energy referenced standard updated to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, the
total EA points represent 25% of the total points in LEED v2.2
Credit EAc2 title renamed from Renewable Energy
Credit Eac6, percentage reduced from 50% to 35%.
EAc6 Green Power 35% for
2-Y Contract
1 6% of
EA points
LEED v3.0, 2009
(USGBC 2009)
EAc2.1
EAc2.2
EAc2.3
EAc2.4
EAc2.5
EAc2.6
EAc2.7
On-Site
Renewable
Energy
1%
3%
5%
7%
9%
11%
13%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20% of
EA points
Energy referenced standard updated to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, the
total EA points represent 32% of the total points in LEED v3.0.
Credit EAc2 points reweighted from 1-3 points to 1-7 points,
nevertheless the share of EA points remains slightly unchanged,
because the entire EA section has been increased from 25% to
32%. Also, Lower and higher thresholds added
Credit EAc6, reweighted from 1 point to 2 points and purchases
of green power are based on the quantity of energy consumed, not
cost. Also, specify Green-e Energy products EAc6 Green Power 35% for
2-Y Contract
2 6% of
EA points
LEED v4.0, 2013
(USGBC 2013)
EAc5.1
EAc5.2
EAc5.3
Renewable
Energy
Production
1%
5%
10%
1
2
3
9% of
EA points
Energy referenced standard updated to ASHRAE 90.1-2010, the
total EA points represent 30% of the total points in LEED v4.0
Credit EAc2 title renamed from On-Site Renewable Energy and
points adjusted significantly. Also, provision for community-scale
renewable energy systems was added. EAc2.2 is not applicable to
NC rating system.
Credit EAc6 title renamed from Green Power. The required
percentage has been increased. Credit based on total building
energy usage. Carbon offsets allowed for scope 1 or 2 emissions.
Required contract length extended from 2 years to 5 years. Eligible
resources must have come online after January 1, 2005.
New pilot credit (1 point) titled Renewable energy - distributed
generation, to make the building structure capable of supporting
planned photovoltaic technologies on the roof (Solar facility
capacity: 250, 500 or 1,000 kW).
EAc7.1
EAc7.2
Green Power
and Carbon
Offsets
50% for
5-Y Contract

100% for
5-Y Contract
1


2
6% of
EA points



Goals

The goal of this research was to investigate the environmental and economic impacts of
renewable energy (i.e., solar via photovoltaic) produced on-site for high performance buildings
to understand their potential building and systems-level impacts. This research is done in the
context of better understanding the decrease of on-site renewables in Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) v4.0 rating system. Specifically and as shown in Table 1, in the
most recent LEED v4.0, a building that produces 1% of its energy requirements receives 1 point;
5%, 2 points; and 10%, 3 points. While in the previous version of LEED (version 2009) the on-
site renewable points available was from 1 to 7. In our previous work we observed essential
discrepancies in the environmental impact results between sites due to differences in energy
Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy for Buildings

sources. Range of variation in equivalent CO
2
emissions was 6,189 ton in the United States
compared to 10,660 ton worldwide (Al-Ghamdi and Bilec Under Review). So, we suggested that
consideration of energy sources for buildings should be reflected in LEED revisions, with a
particular suggestion of targeted goals versus aggregated certifications. In this paper, we are
trying to understand the interplay and consequences between building potential on-site
renewable and the rationale for the reduction in renewable LEED credits. Specifically, we are
trying to understand if LEED v4.0 is incentivizing or decentivizing renewables within building
footprint. This paper extends life-cycle thinking to examine how much actually the buildings will
produce and what will happen if LEED demands that the energy produced on-site to be a
proportion to what is already exists (not a fixed percentage) and in reaction to each building
environmental impact.



Investigative Method

We developed a case study building using Building Information Modeling (BIM) and placed it in
400 sites around the world. All building materials that influence the thermal characteristics (e.g.,
building enclosure and insulation) and other variables are changed for each location
independently to comply with ASHRAE 90.1 as required by LEED. Next, a baseline energy
model was built for each site using Autodesk Green Building Studio (GBS) to compute the
energy usage. After that, each energy model was advanced to compute the renewable energy
produced on-site (solar using photovoltaic) available within the building footprint and regional
climate. A life-cycle approach and cost analysis were used to analyze the environmental and
economic impacts while considering different energy sources and associated prices at each
site. This framework paper will cover in details eight explanatory locations among the 400
included in the original study.

In all LEED previous and current versions buildings required to accomplish a fixed percentage
of reduction in the energy performance (LEED EA p2, c2). Likewise and as shown in Table 1, to
obtain renewable credit buildings need to accomplish a fixed percentage in energy produced on-
site regardless of what is obtainable or available in the site. For example, the highest points can
be obtained in the renewable credit (LEED v3.0 AE c2) are 3 points and awarded when the
building produces 10% of its energy cost on-site as shown in Equation 1. Economic feasibility
like payback period and environmental performance are not considered. In the LEED v4, the
referenced standard was updated from ASHRAE 90.1-2007 to ASHRAE 90.1-2010, which
resulted in more energy saving due more strict requirements from ASHRAE. Conversely, LEED
reduced the mandatory percentages (Prerequisite EA p2) of energy reduction beyond code
compliance from 10% to 5% and kept the fixed percentage of energy saving and on-site
production regardless the variations in the environmental and economic performance.

Equation 1: Renewable Energy % =
Equivalent cost of usable energy produced by the renewable energy system
Total building annual energy cost


Case Study Building

The case study building consists of 20 floors above ground and two underground, with total area
of 606,875 ft
2
(56,381 m
2
). The building type was designed as an office that was used for
general office space. Operational schedules were set to be the same according to the local time
and calendar of each location taking into account holidays and daylight saving time. All building
materials that shape the thermal characteristics and other variables in each location
Sami G. Al-Ghamdi and Melissa M. Bilec

(independently from the other sites) comply with the suitable codes as it will be clarified
subsequently.

We used BIM compatible energy analysis tools that meets the LEED requirement for calculating
a buildings baseline performance according to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007,
Appendix G (ASHRAE, ANSI et al. 2007). The HVAC system was Central Variable Air Volume
(VAV), HW Heat, Chiller 5.96 COP, Boilers 84.5 eff. Other characteristics and variables have
been identified in the following accordance. HVAC efficiency and lighting power density were set
to meet the ASHRAE 90.1 2007 (ASHRAE, ANSI et al. 2007). Equipment power density was set
to meet the California 2005 Title 24 Energy Code (California Building Standards Commission
2005). Occupancy density and ventilation were set to meet ASHRAE 62.1 2007 (ASHRAE,
ANSI et al. 2007). The HVAC type default and any other characteristics were set following the
2003 CBECS (Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey) (US EIA 2003). Source of
energy considered to be natural gas for the building space heating and water heating, while
using electricity for the rest of the energy needs.

Renewable Energy Modeling

There are a variety of options and technologies available for renewable energy systems on-site.
Those systems are either for electricity generation or thermal systems with energy sources from
solar, wind, geothermal or biomass. In this study, we have focused on solar energy with respect
to the electricity generation only. This was due to limited data for modeling and to reduce the
amount of assumptions as much as possible. Using Autodesk Green Building Studio (GBS) and
through the 400 energy models that was built previously, the on-site renewable energy sources
for each location were modeled and calculated.

Solar energy is the most abundant of all energy resources with many applications that utilize the
suns radiant light and heat. Photovoltaics are commonly used in building applications compared
to concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies. About 85-90% of the PV market is dominated
by wafer-based crystalline silicon (c-Si) cells technologies; that include mono or single
crystalline (sc-Si) and multi crystalline (mc-Si). Other technologies like thin films represent 10-
15% of the market share. Less than 1% is for other technologies like organic solar cells and
concentrated PV technologies (IEA 2010). In PV, conversion efficiency plays an important role
in the development of technical and economic feasibility. In August 2013, US Department of
Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) announced that their scientists have
set a world record in solar cell efficiency with a photovoltaic device that converts 40.8% of the
light that hits it into electricity from a metamorphic triple-junction solar cell (NREL 2013). That
was in a lab standard test conditions and for technology as mentioned (less than 1%). Single-
junction wafer-based c-Si cells have been independently verified to have record energy
conversion efficiencies of 25.0% ( 0.5) for sc-Si and 20.4% ( 0.5) for mc-Si (Green, Emery et
al. 2014). However, the current efficiencies in the commercial modules are much lower, about
14-20% for sc-Si and 13-15% for mc-Si (IEA 2010). In this study we were conservative and
used sc-Si with efficiency of 13.8%.

In the case study building, all possible surfaces were utilized where we used both roof systems
that cover all roofs and faade systems that cover exterior walls and fixed windows; after the
modeling was done we considered only the surfaces that meet particular economic constraints.
Within the last three decades, very substantial cost reductions have occurred in the solar
technologies. In this study, we chose a conservative panel cost of $8.00 per watt ($102.62 per
ft), based on a study by the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory that examined 37,000 grid-connected PV systems in the United States (Wiser, Galen
Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy for Buildings

et al. 2009). The panel cost includes materials and labor to install a complete grid-connect solar
electric system. We applied the electric cost (utility rates) for each location independently with
the assumption that energy price will escalate by 2% per year. Based on the foregoing, a
maximum payback period for each surface was independently set to not exceed the building life
span (50 year). The total system payback period as result will be less than 50 years and in
many cases as the results will show it was less than building life span, e.g. 36 years. Our
payback figures are fairly conservative as we did not consider any federal and state energy
incentives, tax breaks, loan solutions or system derating factors.

Table 2: Energy and photovoltaic analysis in the different locations*
Variable
Pinon Hills,
California, USA
Honokaa,
Hawaii, USA
Sobral,
Cear, Brazil
Coquimbo,
Elqui, Chile
Benxi,
Liaoning, China
Chteauroux,
Centre, France
Narasapur,
Andhra Pr., India
Ske,
Aydn, Turkey
Applied Electric
Cost ($ per kWh)
$0.12 $0.34 $0.12 $0.14 $0.09 $0.11 $0.08 $0.14
Installed Panel
Cost ($)
$9,755,853 $11,288,892 $7,334,941 $10,999,055 $4,902,064 $4,670,344 $2,392,629 $10,046,420
Installed Panel
Area (ft)
95,068 110,007 71,477 107,183 47,769 45,511 23,316 97,900
* Panel Type is sc-Si with efficiency of 13.8%. Installed Panel Cost is $8.00 per Watt ($102.62 per ft). Maximum payback period per surface is 50
years. No federal and state energy incentives, tax breaks, loan solutions or system derating factors are considered in this payback calculation.


Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was then used to analyze the environmental impacts due to the
buildings energy consumption in the eight locations focusing on life cycle energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions. The four steps standard LCA methodology was used following the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in ISO 14040 and 14044 (ISO 1997; ISO
2006).

The first step, Goal and Scope, considered the entire life cycle of the energy used in the
building. The functional unit was identified to be the building (annual energy consumption of
electricity). The second step, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), inventory data were drawn in the
following order from: US Life Cycle Inventory-based databases (USLCI) (NREL 2010);
Ecoinvent (Frischknecht, Jungbluth et al. 2005); then other databases if unit process were not
available (ESU Services Ltd. 1996; Franklin Associates Ltd. 1998). For the electric power plant
source and as shown in Table 3, data was collected for the US sites from the US plants from US
Environmental Protection Agency, EGRID 2006 Data and 2004 Plant Level Data (US EPA
2012); the other six sites was obtained from 2009 Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA)
database (CARMA 2009) and International Energy Agency (IEA) database (IEA 2009). The third
step, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), the inputs and outputs of each process were
calculated using the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other
environmental Impacts (TRACI) 2 v3.01. The fourth step, Interpretation, we report the results
and conclusion as it will be shown later in following section.

Sami G. Al-Ghamdi and Melissa M. Bilec

Table 3: Power plant energy sources in the different locations
Energy Sources
Pinon Hills,
California, USA
Honokaa,
Hawaii, USA
Sobral,
Cear, Brazil
Coquimbo,
Elqui, Chile
Benxi,
Liaoning, China
Chteauroux,
Centre, France
Narasapur,
Andhra Pr., India
Ske,
Aydn, Turkey
Fossil 62% 78% 0% 0% 100% 2% 99% 94%
Coal 7% 2% 0% 0% 99% 1% 82% 34%
Oil 1% 77% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3%
Gas 53% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 15% 58%
Nuclear 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 95% 0% 0%
Hydro 13% 2% 100% 86% 0% 3% 0% 4%
Renewable 10% 19% 0% 14% 0% 1% 0% 2%
Other 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



Results

The results of eight different locations are summarized in Table 4. The results showed a
significant variation from one location to another, in the amount of electricity
consumed/produced and/or in the economic and environmental benefits. The range of saving
was between 22% in Chile with a payback of 32 years to 4% in India with a payback of 43
years. Below is a summary of the most important results from three major perspectives: energy
saving, economics and the environmental impacts:

Energy saving. Overall, five of the eight buildings can produce more than the 10% of the
energy production accredited by LEED. The highest percentage of on-site production
compared to the amount of electricity needed by the building was in Chile (22%) followed by
California (19%). While the lowest percentage was in India (4%) followed by France (7%).

Economics. The building in Hawaii achieved the shortest payback period (24 years) and
produced 12% of its electricity needs. The payback period for the building in France was the
longest (46 years).

Environmental impacts. In China and India, the small savings percentages (8% and 4%)
were powerful in terms of the amount of emissions mitigation as they are more dependent
on fossil fuels. The 8% saving in Chinas building was roughly equal to 19% in California and
reduce their global-warming potential (GWP) by around 800 (ton eq CO
2
). On the other hand
and despite the large economic burden in France (46 years) the environmental benefits
were the lowest among all the buildings as the reduction in GWP was 30 (ton eq CO
2
) only.
Finally, the highest environmental benefits were in Turkey where the building could save up
to 1,231 (ton eq CO
2
).

Table 4: Energy, economics and environmental results in the different locations
Variable
Pinon Hills,
California, USA
Honokaa,
Hawaii, USA
Sobral,
Cear, Brazil
Coquimbo,
Elqui, Chile
Benxi,
Liaoning, China
Chteauroux,
Centre, France
Narasapur,
Andhra Pr., India
Ske,
Aydn, Turkey
Annual Energy
Consumption (kWh)
8,272,410 9,209,913 10,013,230 7,970,002 8,857,192 7,685,161 9,939,737 8,245,791
Annual Energy
Production (kWh)
1,569,501 1,081,503 1,352,748 1,729,423 733,852 571,272 437,095 1,439,853
Annual Potential
Cost Savings ($)
$185,044 $365,223 $162,330 $250,766 $68,909 $60,955 $34,967 $200,140
Annual Reduction
GWP (ton eq CO2)
821 835 204 244 871 30 474 1,231
Annual Saving
Percentage (%):
19% 12% 14% 22% 8% 7% 4% 17%
System Payback
(years):
36 24 32 32 44 46 43 35
Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy for Buildings

Conclusion

In this paper we investigate the environmental and economic impacts of renewable energy (i.e.,
solar via photovoltaic) produced on-site for high performance buildings to understand potential
building and systems-level impacts. The results show discrepancy between what can be
achieved and what is the recognized or accredited by LEED. Five of the eight buildings in this
paper can produce more than the 10%, the maximum percentage recognized by LEED. The
environmental impacts/benefits of using renewable systems varied greatly depending on the
type of energy source in the building, as the case of China compared to California building in
this paper. We recommend additional consideration in the next LEED version to change the
requirements of renewable energy generation to be a percentage of what actually available on-
site, instead of a fixed percentage of the energy needed by the building. Also, buildings with
higher environmental impacts due to the type of conventional energy source must achieve
higher levels of renewable utilization based on associated impacts; whether that will be through
on-site power generation or by contracting with green power providers.

The significance of our findings relies on the fact that LEED has rapidly expanded into a global
system to cover most of the world. For future work under this ongoing project, we plan to
increase the sample size and include more than one type of renewable energy such as wind
power and geothermal energy. Sensitivity analyses considering more variables such as
expected future changes in the cost of renewable energy ($/watt) will also been considered.



Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a scholarship from the Ministry of Higher Education in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the US (SACM)
Washington, DC (64581). We would like to acknowledge the University of Pittsburghs Mascaro
Center for Sustainable Innovation for their support. This material is based upon work supported
by the National Science Foundation under EFRI-SEED (1038139). Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.



References

Al-Ghamdi, S. G. and M. M. Bilec (Under Review). "Life Cycle Thinking in the LEED Rating Systems:
Global Perspective on the Variations in Energy Environmental Impacts." Environmental Science &
Technology.
ASHRAE, ANSI, et al. (2007). Standard 62.1-2007: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta,
GA, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating and Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers), ANSI
(American National Standards Institute) and IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America).
ASHRAE, ANSI, et al. (2007). Standard 90.1-2007: Energy Standard For Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. Atlanta, GA, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating and Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and IESNA (Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America).
Sami G. Al-Ghamdi and Melissa M. Bilec

California Building Standards Commission (2005). 2005 California Energy Code: California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. Sacramento, CA, California Building Standards Commission.
CARMA (2009). Power Plant Data. Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) V 3.0 - with year 2009 data
Washington, DC, Center For Global Development.
ESU Services Ltd. (1996). ETH-ESU LCI 96. ESU Services Ltd.
Franklin Associates Ltd. (1998). Franklin LCI US 98. Franklin Associates Ltd
Frischknecht, R., N. Jungbluth, et al. (2005). "The ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodological
Framework." The international journal of life cycle assessment. 10(1): 3.
Green, M. A., K. Emery, et al. (2014). "Solar cell efficiency tables (version 43)." Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications 22(1): 1-9.
IEA (2009). Electricity Generation by Fuel. IEA Statistics - with year 2009 data. Paris, France,
International Energy Agency (IEA).
IEA. (2010). "Technology Roadmap: Solar Photovoltaic Energy." from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264088047-en.
IEA (2010). World energy outlook 2010. Paris, France, International Energy Agency (IEA), Organisation
for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD).
IEA (2013). World energy outlook 2013. Paris, France, International Energy Agency (IEA), Organisation
for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD).
ISO (1997). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment: Principles and framework. Switzerland,
Geneva, International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
ISO (2006). Environmental management - life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines.
Switzerland, Geneva, International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
NREL (2010). US Life-Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI). Golden, CO, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL),.
NREL. (2013). "NREL Solar Cell Sets World Efficiency Record at 40.8 Percent." News Release NR-2708
Retrieved Feb 18, 2014, from http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2008/625.html.
Sathaye, J., O. Lucon, et al. (2012). Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development.
Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: special report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. O. Edenhofer, R. P. Madruga, Y. Sokonaet al. New York, NY, Cambridge
University Press.
US EIA (2003). Commercial buildings energy consumption survey (CBECS). Washington, DC, US Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Dept. of Energy.
US EPA (2012). Plant Level Data. eGRID 2012 V 1.0 - with year 2009 data Washington, DC, US
Environmental Protection Agency
USGBC (2001). LEED reference package, version 2.0. Washington, D.C., U.S. Green Building Council.
USGBC (2003). LEED reference guide for new construction & major renovations (LEED-NC), version 2.1.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Green Building Council.
Environmental and Economic Impacts of On-Site Renewable Energy for Buildings

USGBC (2005). LEED-NC for new construction : reference guide, version 2.2. Washington, DC, U.S.
Green Building Council.
USGBC (2009). Green building design and construction leed reference guide for green building design
and construction, LEED v2009. Washington, DC, U.S. Green Building Council.
USGBC (2013). LEED reference guide for building design and construction, LEED v4.0. Washington, DC,
U. S. Green Building Council.
Wiser, R., B. Galen, et al. (2009). Tracking the sun: the installed cost of photovoltaics in the U.S. from
1998-2007. Berkeley, CA, USA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).