Medical equipment represents significant energy loads in healthcare facilities, yet there are no clear standards currently available to compare power consumption across brands or identify the most energy-efficient units.
The intention of this energy efficiency credit is to deal with an important product category, yet one not yet covered by EPA’s Energy Star program. This credit is structured to incentivize market transformation towards more energy-efficient diagnostic imaging (X-ray, MRI) equipment, and sterilization equipment, and point-of-use electric steam generators installed in healthcare projects. This equipment is not currently covered by other LEED energy efficiency credits.
Although developed in a health care context, PC3 is open via IDc1 to all projects using these NC and CI LEED 2009 rating systems.
To gain credit, at least 50% of the plug load of applicable equipment purchased in the project must be among the 25th percentile of lowest energy consumers for that class of equipment. Electric powered equipment shall be compared based on its idle (or “standby”) mode electrical energy consumption, as stated on the nameplates of multiple brands. Since different manufacturers of similar equipment may offer different power modes that are incomparable across other brands, the committee chose to compare idle power because it is a uniform metric across manufacturers. In cases where the medical equipment is always in operation for patient safety purposes, normal power (or continu-ous operation mode) should be substituted for idle power so a valid comparison can be made. Thermally powered equipment shall be compared based on thermal energy use at peak demand. For equipment that uses both thermal and electrical energy, both sources shall be considered.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors
To reduce energy consumption by using efficient medical and other equipment.
Reduce the energy load for all diagnostic imaging equipment (x-rays, MRIs, etc), sterilization, and point- of-use electric steam generators installed in the project, (but excluding other types of medical equipment):
Register for the pilot credit
I work for GE Healthcare and we recently introduced a new CT (Cat-Scan) Scanner to the market that is 60% more electrically efficient. We are the first and only company to come out with a scanner approved by the FDA as an energy-efficient unit. The vast improvement in energy savings & efficiency is due to the integration of a new "sleep-mode" feature.
As you know, medical equipment (especially CT & MRI) represents a significant percentage of energy loads in healthcare facilities annually. It has been said that large medical equipment is, on average, only "in-use" (meaning with a patient being scanned) about 70% of the time; the other 30% of the time the machines, although not "in-use," have to still be "up & running" due to the elongated ramp-up/ start up time and the necessary internal cooling of certain parts. With this unique FDA-cleared CT Scanner developed by our GRC team, we have now circumvented that 30% extra up-&-running time, allowing for 60% decrease in energy consumption.
With that said, I am curious as to whether there are any incentive programs or tax credits (possibly Pilot Credit 3 or others I am unaware of) that this new scanner may align with so that customers are monetarily or LEED-point incentivized to make a slightly more expensive capital investment for a more efficient system. Would a product like this qualify for any: Tax credits? LEED points? LEED Pilot Credit 3? Incentive Programs?
I apologize for the long explanation, but any guidance you can provide would be much appreciated as I have been unsuccessful in finding any information on this matter.
Certainly looks like this would help teams meet this pilot credit.
The only financial incentives that come to mind would be in those areas with demand side management programs. Many utilities offer rebates for energy efficiency. Typically they have a whole series of set rebates and incentives and also a custom incentive. Sounds like this would probably need to be submitted under a custom incentive program. The requirements for applying will vary depending on the program so this would have to be investigated based on the location of the project where it would be installed.
A great source of information to find out about local incentives is:
If we have a LEED Project that was pursuing a Pilot Credit but without knowing that it was a Pilot Credit, and are at the Submission Phase can we still apply for this credit. Basically the Owner's Purchasing Policy hits all the requirements to achieve a pilot credit, and we have all the backup documentation, but I'm just worried its too late. Any input?
You can still try to apply this ID credit. Go ahead and register.
Anyone else still slogging away on this credit? We're making some headway. I've gotten the equipment consultant to provide me with a list of 'equal' products for the credit. I thought i was home free but getting 'equal' information from the other manufacturers is proving more difficult. They are reporting energy use differently so progress is sssslooooowww. The other problems I'm having is that since they won't be gettind the project, they have zero motivation to provide me with the information I am requesting.
I have successfully submitted for this Pilot Credit (credit approved in July 2011). I had the same experience of difficulty finding product equals and then getting information from manufacturers. I found about half of the dental equipment I researched did not have the information readily available. About 1/4 did not have the information at all, or did not return any calls or emails. Our project equipment did not end up achieving the the efficiency levels required.
Susan - Are you working on a hospital project? Have you had any success? I'm working on a hospital project that is installing general x-ray, r/f x-ray, sterilizers, and washer/disinfectors and have a really limited number of equals, only 3-5 for each. And finding comparable energy data is a challenge as well. The only metric that seems to be common that I’ve been tracking is the maximum rated powerRated power is the nameplate power on a piece of equipment. It represents the capacity of the unit and is the maximum that it will draw.. Any thoughts and/or experience on number of equals or power ratings you or anyone out there could share?
Brian, I'm sorry i did not see your post until now. We've run into the same wall here. Our projects are installing linear accelerators and a CT simulator. We don't have a recnt general x-ray project at the moment. Have you tried GE Healthcare's site?
Thanks for the reply Susan. Our team decided not to submit this credit for a number of reasons. Comparable data between manufacturers for this type of equipment is not yet readily available and not worth the time it takes to dig for the information. Once a comparable set of metrics is established similar to ENERGY STAR, then I think this credit will be achievable. The other barrier for larger hospital projects is that they often have multi year contracts with specific vendors so picking and choosing among manufacturers to find the most efficient piece of equipment isn't feasible. Eventhough our team didn't attempt this credit, the project was certified gold this month so we're very excited.
We are looking to pursue this credit on a project, both to participate in the pilot process, but more importantly, as a means to select energy efficient medical equipment.
How does one establish the full range of energy consumption for a particular type of medical equipment, in order to select ones in the 25th percentile?
Our approach is to mimic the Energy Star threshold. Our project has largely selected medical equipment so we are working with the equipment consultant to identify equal competitors. Then we'll chart all of them and see which one is going to be in the upper percentile. The hard part is what the equipment consultant considers to be an equal. There may not be a large statistical pool.
To attend the requirements of this PC it is necessary to compare the chosen equipment for the project with its similars. We are a little confused about what to compare: in the beginning the requirements states that we should use the rated powerRated power is the nameplate power on a piece of equipment. It represents the capacity of the unit and is the maximum that it will draw., although, some lines after, it says that we should compare the equipments based on their continuous mode electrical energy consumption (stand-by mode). Which of them (rated power or stand-by mode) should we use to compare the chosen equipment with their similar?
Fabiano Ferreira / Juliana Malho
Cushman & Wakefield
The requirement is 50% by rated powerRated power is the nameplate power on a piece of equipment. It represents the capacity of the unit and is the maximum that it will draw.. Some equipment should be compared in stand-by mode and some at continuous operation. In stand-by mode is just one form of rated power. See the "Credit Specific" section under Bird's Eye View above for the details.
Does anyone already submitted any information for this PC?
We are thinking about a spreadsheet just like EAc1.4 from LEED ID&C informing all equipments applied to the project, its rated powerRated power is the nameplate power on a piece of equipment. It represents the capacity of the unit and is the maximum that it will draw.; as well it’s similar on the marked with its information too, so we can compare the chosen equipment with others.
Any other suggestions?
That would be a good start. The difficult part, after getting all of the data on the specified equipment, will be to determine if the selected equipment is in the 25th percentile for that class of equipment. In order to do so there needs to be an Energy Star or equivalent rating for medical equipment or you will have to gather comparable data on not only your equipment but any similar equipment offered by all competitors. As suggested in the credit language above you could perhaps seek the assistance of some kind of medical equipment research organization.
When this credit was proposed it was the opinion of the EA TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. that it could not be earned given the current data available on the subject. It is hoped that this pilot credit encourages project owners to ask energy use questions of their medical equipment suppliers and thus transfor the market. I would strongly suggest that you solicit the assistance of the medical equipment suppliers in getting the data you will need.
Im working on a LEED project located in Australia and Im new to the LEED energy model requirements and ASHRAE 90.1. My project is a medical research building, with high process loads due to medical equipment, including a cyclatron.
Im trying to work out which process loads I need to include in the energy model and also how this pilot credit affects how I treat process loads in the model. If I try to claim reduced energy usage in my design model compared to the base case, then also claim this credit, Im effectively claiming for this energy reduction twice.
Should I exclude high energy use medical equipment from the LEED energy model, and claim the efficiency in the pilot credit instead?
Any advice would be much appreciated.
You will need to include all energy uses in the models for EAp2/EAc1. You can also claim savings in EAp2/EAc1 for process load reductions and also earn this pilot credit for the same action. Double dipping encouraged here to claim it in both places.
Hi LEEDusers -
The idea behind pilot credits is to get feedback from project team members on the concepts we're testing so that USGBC can learn from your experience and make these credits better (so that you can make your buildings better, so that we can learn from that, so that we can make LEED better, so that you can make your buildings better...).
We can't do it without you so get on with it already.
Spread the word to friends and colleagues and if we run in to each other at Greenbuild, I'll buy you a beer!
We at C&W agree with you and already submitted for this PC3 a consultancy project of ours. We think it will be very important to discuss that, so you can understand better the market.
Fabiano Ferreira / Juliana Malho
Fabiano, what is your feedback on how well this pilot credit worked for your project? Any lessons learned from the process or documentation?
We've just registered on this credit now and we are starting to apply on a project. As soon as we've got our first impression we'll commet about it.
Reducing process loads of all types should be a LEED insentive credit wize, but is often pushed back due to the difficalties documenting the exceptions to ASHRAE 90.1 Appx. G for differing baseline / design case process loads. The LEED requirement to have process loads at minimum 25% also makes credit achievement more difficalt as measured energy gains are restricted to only non-process loads. The idea behind excluding them in the first place was that "process loads" are "unregulated" which I believe is a nice way of saying that they are often highly variable and a best guess input...but many process energies can be very carefully measured. Data exists for many and MOST importantly, many buildings have process loads that nowhere near reflects 25%!
For example, sportsfields use HDTV Floodlighting systems that require minimum 2500 luxMeasurement of lumens per square meter. illumination levels. This is very specialized lighting, where spectral intensity is often regulated by bodies like FIFA. Good lighting design and expensive lights can often save as much as 10% energy. Because of the Mega Watt range of the energy consumption of floodlighting, this is in my opinion a process load, a function of the sports arena, and constitutes as much as 1/9th of the electric load on an event day.
This reflects itself in NC - EAp2 and EAc1. As a process load this must be the same for baseline and design case, but can be different when accurately and quantifiably documented and supported.
That being said, the metal content and life of the lights is also an important factor not accounted for in NC and could be brought in from EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems..
The aim should be to give credit where credit is due and at the same time not discourage potential stradegies for saving energy. If certain stradegies cannot translate into LEED credits due to ASHRAE restrictions, then perhaps they should translate into LEED credits elsewhere in the system.
Jean, I absolutely agree, and hope that process loads will continue to be addressed in LEED in more constructive ways.
To address your question, one reason that this credit focuses on medical equipment is that it was written for the LEED for Healthcare rating system, but it was decided that it needed more work in a pilot program.
Director – LEED
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.