Senator EVANS. Mr. Bazjanac.

STATEMENT OF VLADIMIR BAZJANAC, ENERGY CONSULTANT Mr. BAZJANAC. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Vladimir Bazjanac, and I am an energy consultant. As a building energy consultant, I work closely with architectural and engineering teams which are commissioned to design some of the largest and most complex buildings in the United States.

Over the last 9 years, I have been involved with projects totaling almost two thirds of a billion dollars worth of new construction. In my role as an energy consultant, I am called upon to help develop solutions that will meet the client's energy and cost criteria or to advise the design team on ways to improve the energy efficiency of their proposed design solutions.

Windows are a major reason for energy use in buildings; they now account for about 5 percent of total U.S. energy consumption or an amount equivalent to the output of the Alaskan oil pipeline. Although people have always desired windows in buildings, the mistaken assumption that windows only increase energy costs led in the past to poorly formulated building codes which limited allowable window area.

Research supported by the Department of Energy at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory has helped to prove that if the benefits of windows are properly accounted for, windows can perform better than the best insulated wall or roof. This has resulted in the modification of many codes which now permit more liberal and more energy efficient use of windows.

In my experience on specific building projects, it is now usually possible to meet or exceed the most stringent code requirements. In some cases we have reduced energy consumption 20 to 50 percent below current requirements and as much as 80 percent below typical practice in 1975.

If widely implemented, these savings will substantially reduce fuel and electricity requirements and the need to invest in major new energy generation facilities.

Our new understanding of how buildings and their occupants benefit from windows has spurred the development of new glazings, new window systems, new lighting controls and new lighting systems. This, in turn, has created new companies and new jobs in the building industry.

The understanding of how new technologies work has allowed consultants like myself to help create better building design solutions previously not considered, and to achieve performance previously deemed impossible. It is vitally important to the design community, and to the building industry, in general, that this development of knowledge continues.

Let me give you specific examples of how federally supported building energy research has provided essential new tools and information to the building design community and how it has helped accelerate the development of new building products.

One of my recent consulting projects involved the design of the Pacific Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA. The design for the build

ing calls for a very large glass structure which would not have been acceptable if it used conventional glazings; it requires special glass which allows the transmission of daylight while it blocks most heat and ultraviolet rays.

Such special glazings were made possible by DOE's early support of new coating technology development at Southwall Corp. The success of this research stimulated private sector investment in Southwall and led to the development of a new manufacturing facility to produce heat mirror.

Other manufacturers, including most of the largest glass and window firms, have entered the market since. Research on the performance of these glazings by the Windows and Daylighting Research Group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory has made it possible to understand how the coatings affect the building performance, which in turn, helps to justify their use in buildings like the Pacific Museum of Flight.

An aircraft designer would not dream of designing or testing a modern airplane without first test flying. Similarly, a complete understanding of the energy performance of a building design can be achieved only through simulation with computer-based models which take into account all known aspects of performance.

Simulation models which offer such capability are very complex. While a number of such models are available, I found in my work that only one is versatile enough to simulate the energy performance of virtually any building—that is, DOE-2.

This model was developed with DOE support by the Building Simulation Group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the group is continuously upgrading the program with new features. The energy performance of the Pacific Museum of Flight could not have been demonstrated without the use of this model and the building would have required exemption from building codes.

The use of daylight to reduce lighting energy requirements is one of the most important strategies I am asked to evaluate. Daylighting always affects thermal performance. The simulation of this effect in real lift projects and buildings was previously not possible and had to be guessed or approximated.

The windows and Daylighting Group and the Building Simulation Group were instrumental in providing one of the most important breakthroughs in the analysis of the energy performance of buildings: the linking of thermal and daylighting performance in the DOE-2.1B simulation model. This new tool of analysis permits much better, earlier and more accurate understanding of the energy performance of individual buildings and design solutions.

Everybody benefits from this development. The productivity of professionals like myself has increased dramatically. Architects can justify solutions employing more expensive and complex fenestration systems. Value engineering and life cycle costing can be more

accurate.

Owners can make more informed decisions on construction and operating costs. Utilities can achieve some of their goals of shifting portions of demand from peak to offpeak hours. The building industry can better justify investments to develop new products: glazings, lighting systems and controls. The general public can enjoy

better indoor working environments. Society conserves energy and reduces pressure on supplies of nonrenewable resources.

The Windows and Daylighting Group has also created and operates the only scientific daylighting test facility in the United States available to test proposed building designs: a sky simulator.

The designs of several large commercial buildings I have been involved with were justified and accepted only after tests in the sky simulator.

Both of the research groups at LB-L I have mentioned are doing work that even the largest firms in the country cannot undertake by themselves, because of the complexity of the tasks and the cost involved. For example, no design firm in the country, not even firms with the largest volume of work, can afford to develop and operate its own sky simulator.

The results of the groups' work are available to everybody; big and small firms benefit alike. The groups 'researchers continuously contribute the technical information; for example, the Windows and Daylighting Group has released only 100 publications just on fenestration performance.

Finally, I want to emphasize that those of us who extensively use computer-based models in our consulting work must have confidence that our simulations are reliable representations of performance after a building is built and occupied. It is particularly important that our performance studies be done by a technically competent but disinterested, objective party.

Thus, we must rely on results of DOE-supported research for field measurements and validation.

I understand that much of the work supported by the Department of Energy may be phased out because of the proposed reductions to the Federal budget for Energy Conservation Research and Development. I am deeply concerned about the future of the work done by the Windows and Daylighting Group and the Building Simulation Group.

The private sector needs the results of this work. Yet, it does not have the concentration of skills and facilities, nor the individual or collective resources necessary to do the work itself. Who else is going to do this work if support for this research is eliminated?

I share the administration's concern for reducing Federal Deficit, but I think it is a false economy to slash support for a unique and very productive research program which provides vital and otherwise unobtainable information that is essential for the economic health of the building sector.

Abandoning support for programs as effective as these is counterproductive and clearly not in the best national interest.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bazjanac follows:]

Testimony of Vladimir Bazjanac

to the

Senate Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development March 17, 1986

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Vladimir Bazjanac and I am an energy consultant. As a building energy consultant I work closely with architectural and engineering teams which are commissioned to design some of the largest and most complex building projects in the United States. Over the last nine years I have been involved with projects totalling almost two thirds of a billion dollars worth of new construction. In my role as an energy consultant I am called upon to help develop solutions that will meet the client's energy and cost criteria or to advise the design team on ways to improve the energy efficiency of their proposed design solutions.

A building's energy performance is determined by many factors. One of the most significant is a building's interaction with its surrounding environment. This is also the factor most explicitly controlled by architects. The positive aspects of the interaction take place almost entirely through openings in the building envelope: windows and skylights. The balance between gains and losses through glazing is one of the critical factors which determine the performance of a building.

The design of fenestration often affects the architectural appearance of a building more than any other single feature, and as such is considered very carefully by architects. It is also very important to the owner and to the occupants whose environment inside the building is often enhanced by contact with the outside.

Windows are a major reason for energy use in most buildings; they now account for about 5% of total U.S. energy consumption, or an amount equivalent to the output of the Alaskan oil pipeline. Although people have always desired windows in buildings, the mistaken assumption that windows only increase energy costs led in the past to poorly formulated building codes which limited allowable window area. Research supported by the Department of Energy at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) has helped to prove that if the benefits of windows are properly accounted for (use of solar gain in winter, use of daylight to reduce electric lighting

2

year round) windows can perform better than the best insulated wall or roof. This has resulted in the modification of many codes which now permit more liberal, and more energy efficient, use of windows.

In my experience on specific building projects, it is now usually possible to meet or exceed the most stringent code requirements. In some cases, like in the State Office Buildings designed and built in California after 1979, in the Hawaii Medical Services Association headquarters in Honolulu, in the Farm Credit Banks building in Spokane, WA., in the Nevada National Bank building in Reno, in Ohio's Stouffer Corporation's newest hotel in Palm Springs, and in many other buildings, we have reduced energy consumption 20-50% below current requirements and as much as 80% below typical practice in 1975. If widely implemented, these savings will substantially reduce fuel and electricity requirements and the need to invest in major new energy generation facilities.

Our new understanding of how buildings and their occupants benefit from windows has spurred the development of new glazings, new window systems, new lighting controls and new lighting systems. This in turn has created new companies and new jobs in the building industry. The understanding of how new technologies work has allowed consultants like myself to help create better building design solutions previously not considered, and to achieve performance previously deemed impossible. It is vitally important to the design community, and to the building industry in general, that this development of knowledge continues.

Let me give you specific examples of how federally supported building energy research has provided essential new tools and information to the building design community and how it has helped accelerate the development of new building products.

One of my recent consulting projects involved the design of the Pacific Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA. The design for the building calls for a very large glass structure which will house the collection of historic aircraft. This design would not have been acceptable if it used conventional glazings; it requires special glass which allows the transmission of daylight while it blocks most heat and ultra-violet rays. Such special glazings were made possible by DOE's early support of new coating technology development at Southwall Corporation. The success of this research stimulated private sector investment in Southwall and led to the development of a new manufacturing facility to produce Heat Mirror,