-
Improving operational energy performance
After having documented your project building's energy performance for EAp2: Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance, EAc1 will require you to focus closely on improving operational performance and, in some cases, upgrading to more efficient equipment. Use your energy audit results from EAp2 to develop your strategy. Identify and implement no-cost and low-cost opportunities to reduce energy consumption, such as changing heating and cooling set points by one or two degrees and reminding occupants to turn off lights and office equipment when not in use. Capital investments may see relatively prompt paybacks because of reduced utility costs and the likelihood of incentives through federal or regional programs.
Track at least 12 months of energy data
All...
Step-by-step credit help
Got the gist of the LEED credit but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Members get:
- Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
- Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
- Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
- Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
- All checklists organized by project phase.
- On-the-fly suggestions on useful items from the Documentation Toolkit, Resources, and Credit Language.
-
Credit language straight from USGBC
Need to check up on the exact LEED credit language from the LEED Rating System on the fly? LEEDuser includes the verbatim language. Members get:
- Easy access to the official LEED credit language with just a couple of clicks.
- On the jobsite without your bulky LEED Reference Guide? Check up on the credit language details here.
- Credit language content is used by permission of the U.S. Green Building Council.
Your credit-by-credit reference library
Why waste time chasing down referenced standards and supporting resources when LEEDuser links you directly to the ones you need? LEEDuser has gathered all the best tools out there and organized them by credit for easy reference. Members get links to:
- Organizations that can give information or help on a credit.
- Standards or studies that are key reference points for credits and prerequisites.
- Articles that help explain important topics.
- Key documents or references for credit inputs.
- Software tools you can use to run calculations or simulations.
Documentation Toolkit
In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
84 Comments
On Site Solar Power
Energy Star Portfolio Manager requires that power produced and used on site be included when submitting for an Energy Star rating. (This may be a new requirement as of sometime in 2011; I'm not certain.) But the FAQ section on the Energy Star site says that on site solar power gets a source multiplier of 1.0, which makes it better than utility power at around 3.3 or thereabouts if I recall.
My question is that EA Credit 1 says on site wind and solar are not included in the energy calculations for the credit. Does that mean I should leave out the solar power meter when entering data in Energy Star Portfolio Manager? Or has LEED updated the credit requirements to correspond with the fact that solar and wind are included in Energy Star ratings now, albeit it with a favorable source multiplier?
Thank you.
Energy Star Portfolio Manager for intenrational projects
Hi all,
We are working on a project in Belgrade - Serbia. Have I understood correctly that an international project is eligible for Energy Star rating but just cannot get Energy Star because it is an international project?
Therefore we can go for CASE 1?
Thank you in advance and sorry for stupid question.
Yes the October version of the rating system indicated that international projects were not eligible to use Case 1 but the November version dropped that exclusion.
ENERGY STAR vs PIf3 Occupant Count
Our project is currently pursuing LEED. We received an ENERGY STAR label for the 12-month period ending June 30th 2011 with a rating of 81. We plan to submit for our LEED certification in May 2012. The value that was used on our ENERGY STAR portfolio for that 12-month period for Workers on Main Shift was significanlty higher (7000) than the occupancy FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. count we are going to use on the Project Information Form 3 for our LEED submittal (4000). Just recently, upon beginning our pursuit of LEED, a new occupant count survey was conducted and it turned out to be much lower than the figure on the ENERGY STAR portfolio under which we received a stamped SEP and label. We want to submit our LEED application with the most accurate and up-to-date data however we are nervous that the LEED reviewer may see the difference and flag us for the inconsistency. Should we still submit with our active ENERGY STAR label/score, but use the more accurate occupant count on the PI form even though the numbers will be different? Or, in an effort to remain consistent, should we use the old occupant count (higher than actual occupancy) on the PI form so that it matches our ENERGYSTAR portfolio? Or, should we try an alternative compliance on the EA credit and not submit using the labeled score but another reflecting the new occupancy count? Your advice is appreciated! Thank you!!
It is extremely important that you use consistent (accurate) numbers throughout your LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. application. Reviewers will likely ask questions, if your numbers are not consistent throughout the different credits. Secondly, you can’t use an Energy Star Portfolio Manager score from June 2011 unless your Performance Period ended in June (and in that case you would have needed to submit your application within 60 days). All credits must end within a week of each other (See the introduction section of the LEED EBOM 2009 Reference Guide. You will need to use your current Energy Star Portfolio Manager Score at the end of your Performance Period. Before you say wait, we are not eligible for a new energy star label, LEED EBOM does not require the official label from Energy Star; they require an official score. (The EPA Portfolio Manager website has an option of printing your score for purpose other then an energy star label). I would suggest you input your accurate FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. count into EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manger and see what your new score is. Continue to input your energy use every month. Your Energy Star Portfolio Manager score at the end of the performance period is the information you will need to submit with your application.
Thanks for the comment! I agree the reviewers will likely question inconsistencies in the data, based on review comments we have received on other properties. It is unfortunate that this property is experiencing inconsistencies since they are not intentional. I am confused by your statement about not being able to “use an ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager score from June 2011”. Perhaps I wasn’t clear, this property has already received the ENERGY STAR Label. To meet the requirement of EA Pr2 using the streamlined path, a project building that has been ENERGY STAR-labeled within the 12 months preceding the LEED-EB: O&M application date, can simply “Provide the award certificate, congratulatory letter or similar official program correspondence confirming that the project building earned the label, the date of the label and the performance rating achieved in Portfolio Manager.” One other point of clarification, the window for the end of all performance periods was changed to 30 days in the November 3, 2010 Addenda to the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations and Maintenance. As anyone who has worked on an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. project can attest, even 30 days can be a challenge sometimes. Thanks again!
I apologize. I did not recall that in the newer version of LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 you are now allowed you to use the streamline path of just using your energy star certificate from the previous 12-month period at least for EAP2. If you are trying to earn points under EAC1 to be on the safe side, I would update your energy star portfolio manager with your new accurate occupancy data and see what you new energy star portfolio manager score is. This way you know how many points you can really count on achieving if your occupancy levels are questioned. It sounds like you have experience doing LEED EBOM so I am sure you already know this, but I would highly encourage the project to continue to work on lowering the buildings energy use and improving your buildings energy star portfolio manager score until you complete your performance period. In most cases, conducting and implementing results of retro-commissioning can pay for the whole LEED EBOM project with the reduced energy bills.
Not Eligible for ENERGY STAR rating- Case 2 option 1 calculator
Our project is below 5,000sf which makes it automatically not eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating. There are two distinct space types, office + K-12 classroom. Based on this information, the project team is required to use option 1 from the offline LEED calculator. The calculator determined the combined benchmark source EUI to be 179.
This is where I get confused, or the math part of my brain is not working today. The project team is striving to reach a target of 35% better than the benchmark. If I calculated this, the project building should aim for a target of 116 ( 179 *.65). The calculator, on the other hand, determined the project building should be 86. I'm scratching my head on this....Does the calculator take into account other variables?? Thanks.
The calculator is set up to show the percentile change in consumption, not percent reduction, which is why it seems like the math isn't working. Energy Star, and the Case 2 calculator, both work on the use of percentile points.
If you imagine a bell-shaped curve distribution, the distance between one percentile point on the curve and the next varies depending if you are near the top, along the steep sides, or down in the tails. Which means you can't just calculate the percent reduction (where the EUI difference between a reduction 35% to 36% is the same as from 36% to 36%) and have it equal the same amount of change in the percentile points.
Which is a confusing way to say that if you want to set a target EUI for your building, decide on the percentile you want to hit, and then adjust the EUI input in the calculator until is shows that you've hit your goal.
LEED Offline Calculator Space Type Definitions/EUI's
Is there a resource that further defines the activity space types as listed on the Case 2 LEED Offline Calculator and thier respective Source EUI's? Specifcally is there a defintion of how these space types are defined/categorized and a explanation as to where the national average data is compiled and calculated?
Hi Josh,
Yes the most complete set of data is the CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits. Database. This is what Energy Star Portfolio Manager is based off of. There you can find and inventory of what you are looking for. Here is the link. Hope this helps.
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the info. I understand where CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits. and Energy Star Portfolio Manager get their data. My question is where the USGBC's Case 2 LEED Offline Calculator obtains its data as it does not exactly match the CBECS data. Specifically I would like to know where the Case 2 Calculator's space types are defined and the rationale behind the calculator's national average EUI's are further detailed/explained. Can anyone provide this data? Any info helps.
EAp2 Case 2B Fulfillment
Being that my project is a convention center, it does not qualify for energy star. Therefore, I am using the EAp2 Case 2 offline calculator in conjunction with the EPA portfolio manager tool online. Option 2B Historic Data appears to apply to us since we have already compared our facility with 5 other convention centers. The result of that comparison were not helpful since they were all approx. 300 EUI less, due to all being previously LEED certified. My question is: how do I go about fulfilling option 2B? Upon inputting the EUI for the last four years, the offline spreadsheet continues to say N/A for the "Approximate percentile above National Average."
Jessica, we are working on a convention center as well and taking this approach. Your best bet is to not use LEED certified facilities. Have you joined the working group on Energy Star? Can we take this conversation offline, we have been through the ringer on this credit because of the data and calculator. Please email me at jeff@ecopreserve.net. Look forward to talking with you
Protfolio Manager Analysis
We are working on projects for LEED EBO&M and have some doubts related to the credits EApre1& EAc1. The Portfolio Manager Analysis is unable to classify the energy consumption of the plant within the standards of buildings. Thus, the use of a spreadsheet according to LEED is also unable to classify the energy consumption. Therefore we have some questions to ask you:
1 - Is it possible not to consider energy spent for the industrial process and utilities, considering only energy spent for building´s systems (HVAC, elevators etc)?
2 - If option one (1) is not possible, can we consider the energy consumption per unit of production (for example, kWhA kilowatt-hour is a unit of work or energy, measured as 1 kilowatt (1,000 watts) of power expended for 1 hour. One kWh is equivalent to 3,412 Btu. / kg produced rather than kWh/m2)?
3 - We would also like to know if is it acceptable to use Energy Star Index for industrial plants?
Hi Paola, not sure how much my reply will help you but seems like your issue right now is "pre-LEED". I would start with Energy Star as it has pretty strong support when it comes to industrial facilities. I would reach out to buildings@energystar.gov directly on best practices and strategies how to correctly benchmark.
Once you have cleared that up, visit this LEED user area again and check out the offline calculator in the documentation toolkit section. You may end up having to use this if the facility cannot earn an Energy Star score.
Calculator
In the Case 2 Option 2 tab for the offline calculator the cells are locked up on the option III enter current year EUI score as far as I can tell. I have downloaded the calculator from USGBC and LEEDuser and it does the same thing. The cells are protected.
Anyone else have any problems with this before?
Hi Austin
I think I understand what you're describing and have encountered it before when I use the calculator to establish a historical benchmark. Unfortunately, due to the spreadsheet being locked and us not being able to see the macros, I often have to complete many of the cells under in the first options to the best of my ability in order for the correct cells to fill in under the other options.
I hope this helps.
Hannah
Method Choosing
This is an industrial manufacturing facility, and we have filed our data online with Energy Star as Other-Other. We have the 3 years of historical data, but really feel like it's unfair to be compared to anything else at this point because few facilities like ours have tried for LEED, so the data is limited and other building types likely don't use the same amount of energy.
So 3 questions:
1. In the offline calculator under "Elgibility" it asks are you one of 3 categories and one of those is "other". If yes then choose option 1. The next question ask if you are anything other than the above options. If yes then choose option 2. It seems ridiculous to have 2 "others" so how do we differentiate between choosing option 1 and option 2?
2. Because comparison data is so limited for our facility type does anyone have any experience or knowledge about options for this credit? We were thinking about designing our own baseline and comparing against ourselves from the past.
3. Does Case 2 Option 2 (3 years of historical data) still compare against other building types that are similar to you or does it allow you to compare to yourself?
Thank you.
Hi Austin,
We have an industrial property we're working on and while we haven't completed certification yet, I can share our approach.
1. If 10% of the building (by square feet) is classified as 'Other' in Energy Star, use Option 2. One catch, Laboratories are considered Other by Energy Star but not by the USGBC.
2. We're planning to use the historical approach. Additionally, I have contacted other facilities to ask if they would share their energy information. Those that return my calls have not been willing to share that information.
3. We read Option 2 as the historical data for the subject property.
Hope this helps,
Aaron
Tracking energy consumption through the performance period
I understand the 12 mos tracking time period can start before the performance period begins but it must also include the performance period. What if your project's performance period is longer than the minimum 3 months, are you required to input energy data into Energy Star Portfolio for the entire performance period?
My project's performance period is 7 months so I'm wondering if I'm required to only track the minimum 3 months or will I be required to track the full 7? Thanks.
I actually found out the same project above earned an ENERGY STAR rating of 88 for a 12 mos time period ending August 31,2010. Since Aug 31st 2010 is less than a year from the application date (July 1st 2011), this project is eligible to select "streamlined path" on the LEED online form.
Therefore, when I fill out the performance period start and finish date, do I enter the 12 mos time period from the ENERGY STAR label certification form? The documented performance period for this project does not begin until October 1 2010 and ends April 30th 2011. So, technically the ENERGY STAR label does not represent the building's energy consumption during "LEED's performance period". I'm a little confused about LEED's requirements for this situation, can anyone clarify this for me. thanks.
Hi
You are correct that if you are submitting with the streamlined path, the label must have been awarded within one year of the LEED application data. The date the label was awarded is the date on the award letter from Energy Star. The LEED application date is the Submit Review Date on the Timeline tab on LEED Online.
As for the performance period, when using the streamlined option, the performance period doesn't really matter because it takes a back seat to the other timing considerations listed above.
Hannah
Sharing the Portfolio Manager facility profile
LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. v2009 allows you to skip the SEP submittal if you share your Portfolio Manager facility directly with the USGBC review team. The book and LEED Online direct you to share with Portfolio Master Account: "USGBC - LEED_EB:O&M". When I attempted to share with this account, it didn't exist. "USGBC - LEEDPERFORMANCEREPORTING" did, so I shared with them. Does anyone know if this is the right account to share with? -Thanks
The review team immediately commented on submittal. The account that building should be shared with is:
"GBCI - LEED_EB:O&M"
Maximum Points Available
The LEED O&M reference guide states that two points are available under EA Credit #1 for projects that follow Case 2 Option 2A however the LEED online template does not award credits under this option.
Additionally, the LEED O&M reference guide states that seven points are available under EA Credit #1 for projects that follow Case 2 Option 2B however the LEED online template allows up to nine points.
Which is correct, LEED online or the LEED reference guide?
I checked the current reference guide addenda on the USGBC website and it does not address this issue.
Thanks in advance for any insight that can be provided.
David,
The offline calculator includes this note: The initial 2009 Reference Guide misstated the Streamlined Approach point maximum.
I think it's safe to say that you probably have a version of the RG with this problem, and the form / offline calculator is more accurate.
Office building, Jeddah, Saudi A
We have established a rating for the building based on Case 2 Option 1 - beacause the building is not eligible for an Energy Star rating. Based on last years energy data the EA Credit 1 Case 2 calculator indicates a level of 35 above the national median (13 pts), but it looks as if the calculator is based on US national mean data. Would you consider the calculation reliable for a Saudi 2009 office building?
Niels,
I almost certain the calculator uses US national Median data; how this might impact the international aspect of your project I am not sure. You might want to consider normalizing energy use for climate region and compare your building's energy intensityThe ratio of consumption to unit of measurement (floorspace, number of workers, etc.) Energy intensity is usually given on an aggregate basis, as the ratio of the total consumption for a set of buildings to the total floorspace in those buildings. Conditional energy intensity and gross energy intensity are presented. The energy intensity can also be computed for individual buildings. to those in the American Southwest.
Best,
Marc
Case 2 Option 2 (A, B, C)
All,
We are working on a unique facility (production greenhouse) which based on my understanding of EA Pre1 Cr2 can only meet this prerequisite using Case 2 options B--historical data and C- benchmarking; as it does not meet the requirements under Option A generic benchmark of Other.
We have gathered appropriate benchmarking data, but as the facility is part of a campus, in which sub-meters were not originally installed when the project was built 3 1/2 years ago we do not have 3 years of historical building data.
Subsequently sub-meters have been installed, and we have 1 1/2 years of building energy data, we also have 3 + years of campus wide historical data. However it looks as if we need three years of historical building specific energy data in order to fill out portion B of the Case 2 Calculator, and cannot use part C unless we have B finished.
Is there precedent for using only benchmarking data when historical data is not available? Has anyone ever encountered similar issues and developed solutions that GBCI/USGBC will accept? I seem to recall precedents in previous O&M version CIRs that exempted historical data if sub-meters were installed.
Thanks for any insights!
Marc
Marc, In my experience there are some case when allowances are made for a lack of historic data, but this would need to happen through the CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide process.
Hello Marc & All,
I have a similar situation with two other buildings that are not eligible for energy star (one is a sports arena, the other is an airport terminal). They both are part of larger complexes with a master electric meter and only started submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system). recently. Their is the streamlined Option 2A, but in that case you are compared to the national average "other" buildings, which is not a good comparison for these high-use facilities. So having three years of historic data is a requirement, but it's not clear why, as in the case of these non-ratable buildings it just makes them wait for eligibility for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. without really making the process of measuring their energy consumption any more robust. In fact, if they wait until year 3 to improve energy efficiency, they would score better. Shouldn't they have the incentive to improve energy efficiency as soon as possible, and then to submit as soon as they want?
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
LEED EBOM Case 2, Option 1
The project we are working on is a 170,000 SF plus vitamin manufacturing facility with over 10% laboratory space. It does not qualify for an ENERGY STAR rating given too much "other" space. Therefore, we have to use the Case 2 Calculator, which dictates we must use Option 1 for Laboratories and must compare to other lab facilities using the Labs21 Benchmarking tool. There is no guidance for using Labs21 in the reference guide, in the offline calculator, or on Labs21's website. My question is, what does USGBC/GBCI allow us to compare to on Labs21? This makes a huge difference for what the EUI comparison is given if you compare to all types of labs the average is much higher than just those in the specific climate zoneOne of five climatically distinct areas, defined by long-term weather conditions which affect the heating and cooling loads in buildings. The zones were determined according to the 45-year average (1931-1975) of the annual heating and cooling degree-days (base 65 degrees Fahrenheit). An individual building was assigned to a climate zone according to the 45-year average annual degree-days for its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Division., of which, for us, there is no comparison building. If anyone has any experience with this I would appreciate a response. Thanks.
Good news Jennifer - the folks at Labs21 have produced a draft guidance document that I think you will find very helpful. I have actually applied their methodology on a number of labs and it seems quite sound.
http://labs21benchmarking.lbl.gov/docs/Applying+Labs21+Benchmarking+for+...
Hope that helps
This is our first time to handle LEED-EB+OM, most of our projects are under LEED-NC, thus we don't understand the EA credit 1-Optimize Energy Efficiency.
Here's my question:
1. Is Title-24 related to EAc1 from LEED-EB+OM requirements? If so, how can we apply this?
2. What is the baseline of 71% EPA Energy Star performance rating?
3. How can we increase the percentile to get higher points?
4. what is EPA's Energy Star's Portfolio Manager tool? Where can we access this?
Appreciate any inputs/clarification on this requirements.
Thanks,
Susan
Susan,
Here are some comments on your questions:
1. It is my understanding that Title 24 is applicable to new buildings only, so it would not be applicable for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems..
2. 71% baseline is compared to 71% of all like buildings on a scale of 1-100, so 71 is better than anything below it with 100 being the best. Definitely visit www.energystar.gov and do the Portfolio Manager overview for more information on this.
3. You will have to increase building energy efficiency to increase your percentage and then wait for that efficiency to show up through tracking of utility bills - the easiest thing is more efficient lighting. Isn't a huge investment and shows up right away. Commissioning also can contribute to energy savings. Note that they can't be projected, have to be actually measured with Portfolio Manager.
4. Portfolio Manager is an Energy Star tool to track performance of existing buildings. You can read more about it here http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfolio... and create your login to start benchmarking.
Hope this information is helpful.
Jennifer
Thanks jennifer for taking time to respond.
Here's my follow-up questions:
1. So, T-24 will not involve for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. projects? The type of our building is warehouse/museum for storage of collection cars, non-insulated, low efficient AC and half of the roof is already using PV system.
2. If i access the portfolio manager energy star, where should i start?
3. what kind of tool is that to increase builidng energy efficiency? Can we play around the data from this system to increase the points?
Thanks in advance.
Susan
Susan, my $0.02.
1. New building codes like T-24 don't really have any bearing on EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. projects, since EBOM focuses on actual consumption as indicated on utility bills. They only relationship is that theoretically buildings designed to a stringent design code will perform better than national average, and therefore should theoretically fare well in benchmarking via Portfolio Manager (of course, this is not actually always true in reality).
2. If you are a first time user of Portfolio Manager, you might want to spend some time on the web site reading the how-to guides, review the Licenses Profession Guide to Energy Star (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/pm_lp_guide.pdf), or Google for free webinars on the benchmarking process. There's a lot of information out there to help novices.
3. If you are used to design modeling tools, the Energy Star approach is going to seem strange to you. It's not intended to identify the best opportunities for improvements in a specific building, but rather show how you are doing based on actual data. Once you enter the data, you will be able to see how close or far away to a target performance you are, and then would need to devise which strategies are most pertinent in your situation to make progress towards that target. An energy audit, commissioning, investigating utility rebates for upgrades, etc are typical next step. If you monkey with the data to artificially raise your score, the LEED reviewers will notice and it will cause you trouble.
LEED-EBOM District Energy Systems (DES) guidance available
Yesterday USGBC posted posted key guidance for your project if it involves a district energy system. Here is the info from the LEED Resources and Tools page:
District and Campus Thermal Energy Treatment - Initial release of guidance for implementing LEED Energy & Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for existing building projects connected to a district or campus thermal energy system. Includes coverage of both LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: O&M and LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M 2008.
Please discuss below what you think of the new guidance, and what questions you have about DES for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems..
Overall this is good and makes a lot of sense. There are some specifics that are good to have spelled out instead of each team coming up with a methodology of applying renewable energy for example.
One question I have is what about WEc4 for Cooling Tower Management? I think some credit should be given if the DES is managing their water well, but that is not covered in this document.
Good point. If that comes up on a project I'd encourage you to query USGBC about it.
FYI for those who were confused about the two sources from USGBC related to DES. This is a response from GBCI....
"The guidance on page 4 in the more recent document, Treatment of District or Thermal Energy in LEED for Existing Buildings Operations & Maintenance, should take precedence in this case, although following the original approach from page 218 of the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance, 2009 Edition, would also be acceptable and would better respond to the intent of the credit, especially in the case where no other base building systems use refrigerants.
If you are attempting this credit prior to clarification of this matter, you should include this correspondence with your submittal."
Natural Gas Use
We are certifying a building in a campus. The campus as two commercial kitchens, one being in the building we are certifying. Typically, only the kitchen in the project building is used for all food operations for the entire campus.
Do we include all natural gas consumption in the benchmark? If so, does this not inflate the consumption of the project building to beyond what it should be? Can we split it in half if we know that at least half of the use is attributable to operations in the other building?
Alexa - this is sort of an unusual situation, so I don't know of any precedent. However, my suspicion is that you would not be allowed to split the gas use in half for the benchmarking purposes. Usually a kitchen that is part of an office building that just serves the occupants would be classified as the main space type (office). In this case, maybe you would be allowed to classify that space as Other: Food Service. The benchmarking allocates different EUIs to different space types based on the size and other variables, so presumably if this kitchen is serving another building in addition to this one, it is larger than if it just served the project building. I would suggest asking this question directly to Energy Star, since it's a bit unusual and you'll want to be certain that you are handling it correctly.
Thanks for your help Jenny! We have asked USGBC/GBCI instead. Energy Star was not able to give an answer as to what might be accepted for LEED.
Alexa - I actually think this might be fairly simple. The building sounds like a Case 2, Option 1 candidate which will allow you to create a weighted national average source EUI based on the square footage of the various space uses in the building. The fact that the commercial kitchen portion of the building serves other buildings on campus doesn't actually matter - the CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits. data provides a national average of a wide variety of kitchens operating with widely varying hours, capacity, and product. It's part of the beauty (and clumsiness) of that tool. But from an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. perspective, you probably wont be able to control for production. I guess if you wanted to make the case that your kitchen is radically more productive than most (on a per SF basis) then an alternative compliance path might be justified, but I think that the standard path is probably where you'll end up. I'll be interested to hear if USGBC agrees!
Hi, My project is a Cookies
Hi,
My project is a Cookies and Potato Chips facility (from a well known brand) I has an offices building, services, laboratories, and Production Lines. It was built and operates since two years ago outside the US. It has great green features. The problem is that no similar facility exists on Portfolio manager to get a performance rating. I requested information to Energy Star and they responded:
"It seems that your facility would be classified as "Other - Other." Please note, if your entire facility is listed as any of the "Other" space types, it is not eligible to receive a national energy performance rating"
¿Does this means that this facility is not certifiable?
I would be really appreciate any answer.
Jose.
Project types which do not qualify for an Energy Star rating (Case 1) can use Case 2, Option 1 or Option 2 (A, B, or C) as appropriate. The details of these methodologies is found in the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. Reference Guide.
One thing you'll need to be particularly careful of, Jose, is the possibility of normalizing your energy consumption for variations in production. With a manufacturing facility (or partial manufacturing), changes in output can have significant impacts on energy use - normalizing for those changes is the only way to analyze efficiency. You may also want to look into identifying sources of comparable building data - industry or trade associations are one possibility, or public consumption surveys like those produced by the Energy Information Administration. It's a challenging building type, no question about it, but definitely do-able in EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems..
Building Operating Hours - Single Tenant
I have a LEED EB project coming up, the building is a pretty efficient building however i am having trouble with the operating hours for this building. There is only one State Tenant in the building and their operating hours according to the Energy Star's requirements are probably only 45 per week. The average operating hours for an office building according to the EPA is 57. They will probably never meet energy star without spending a fortune because the operating hours are killing the calculation. Has anyone had experience with this, is there a unconventional way of calculating operating hours that I am overlooking, or are there any recommendations I can look at? Thanks.
In my experience, there's not a ton of wiggle room...simply the "number of hours during the week the building is 75% occupied." With such short operating hours, maybe there are large opportunities to save more energy by looking closely at set points and schedules?
Thanks Jenny
Regarding Performance Period for LEED O+M (EB)
Hi Friends,
I knew that all the credits and prerequisites should have the performance period of 3 months except EApr2 & EAcr1 which is required minimum of12 months energy consumption data. And the performance period may extent maximum of 24 months. My doubt is whether the 12 months data should be after the Registration of the project or may be before the registration of the project also. If our building operation has started 6 months before and we have the energy data for that then shall we able to register my project now and can we able to apply for certification for my project after 6 months (before registration 6 months + after registration 6 months) . Could anyone help me to overcome this issue?
Ramesh, the 12 months of data can extend before the project registration date—not a problem.
Old building pursuing GBOM - CIR for an exception on EA1
our building is really old (way older than me), contains ACM's, masonry walls with no insulation, construction of a by-gone era...... it seems unfair to compare it with EnergyStar (CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits.) database (those are predominantly modern era buildings). Plus, it has a combination of spaces unlike about any building I have ever seen. USGBC could argue that it is 50% office (by sf), but it only gets to 50% if all common spaces (closets, corridors, restrooms) are lumped into "offices". Who's to say those spaces serve only the offices in the building (in reality, those common spaces also serve the assembly, labs, other non-office spaces where people work in the building). We thought about the alternative approach of finding three "comparable" buildings, but we are not confident in what USGBC thinks "comparable" means - and we don't really think it's likely we could find anything comparable. The owner has made great strides in improving efficiency since about 2002; unfortunately, USGBC wants data no more than 6 years back (per the reference Guide). Changing envelope and major HVAC upgrades are really not feasible due to construction and (encapsulated) ACM's on airhandlers and ducts; so there is little more they can do to upgrade for energy efficiency that won't "break the bank".
We want to go for a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide and ask exception to having to compare on Energy Star, ask exception to finding a comparable and, instead, be judged strictly on our own history of improvement since 2002 (gas and electric is all metered through local utility and all records are kept monthly). What do you all think our chances are? any advice?
When I do presentations on LEED and LEED GBOM for local trade orgs in Cinti, I often tell folks not to be discouraged if you have an old building - If I don't get "thumbs up" on this CIR, I may have to eat my words.
thank you
Tom Kennedy
Having done some word-eating in my day around EAc1, I know where you are coming from. A couple of thoughts that may be helpful - My experience is that the USGBC/GBCI and Energy Star are very closely aligned on the issue of historic buildings. They generally conclude that the age of a building is not relevant to its energy efficiency rating. Obviously, age affects energy efficiency itself, but Energy Star (and by extension, LEED) are not designed to compare buildings adjusted for age - they just compare buildings based on space uses. So frankly I'm not optimistic for you on that point. On the space use issue, I think you've hit on a challenging aspect of Energy Star, which is allocating common spaces to various space uses in the building. And here I think you are right to take a common sense approach - if a given corridor serves only assembly spaces, it should be included in that space use. On the other hand, if it serves both assembly and office, you might use a square-foot weighted average to distribute the corridor SF between those two space types. Hope that helps a bit.
Hi Tom,
Quite often the data does not back up your assumption that an old building uses more energy than an new one. In my experience just the opposite is true.
A significant improvement complinace path for this credit has been included in the draft of LEED 2012 which should be out for public comments soon. I am told that this method has also been proposed for inclusion in the pilot credits for LEED 2009 projects. So look for it there.
As usual with USGBC activities it is difficult to give you any timeframes however.
I second Marcus's comments. In fact, a favorite past time is poking around the CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits. microdata, which shows pre-1950's buildings to be the most efficient age class in terms of EUI.
The space classification does sound like a challenge, but even if you can reassign the corridors, you still might not be eligible for Case 2, Option 2 (or Option C for v2008). This is the path that allows historic or comparables into the benchmarking. I would recommend sitting tight as Marcus suggests to see what changes are afoot...they may help you out quite a bit.
Regarding the CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits. data and pre-1950's buildings: much of the CBECS EUI data is *site* EUI, not *source* (The dataset guidelines state that 'electricity' means 'site' unless noted otherwise.). Perhaps pre-1950's buildings use a higher average percentage of electricity for heating than newer buildings, thereby skewing the site EUI comparison.
(Energy Star, of course, converts to source EUI for determining the ES rating.)
Energy Star Partner
Hi.
We have a project here back in Taiwan and we need to achieved some credit for EAC1. I get to know that US EPA Energy Star has international program with other countries as to promote Energy Star project , and Taiwan is one of the country participated. i wonder Taiwan Energy Star Product capable to contribute weight for this credit?
any respond will be helpful
thanks.
James,
Seems like you would need to do the benchmarking per the US EPA Portfolio Manager Tool according to the guidelines for international projects in the LEED Reference Guide, as I haven't heard before of a country-specific alternative tool being used. Definitely seems like CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide territory though, if you are proposing something other than use of the standard US EPA Energy Star benchmarking.
Hi Jenny,
thanks.
As i know, they have signed a MOU (momerandum of understanding) between Taiwan EPA and US EPA. therefore, the work standard + criteria should be the same.
i trying to get some answer from US EPA, and hope they could reply back to me.
Energy Star and Energy & Water Data Release Form
1) if a project obtains a score of 96 in Energy Star, this counts as 18 points?
2) where do we upload the accomplished Energy and Water Data Release Form?
1) Yes, 18 points
2) Are you referring to the Minimum Program Requirement to supply energy and water data to USGBC for 5 yeas? That is related to PI Form 1, which is where you would upload the release in LEED Online. That release form is not the same as the requirement to provide utility data from the performance period for EAp2/EAc1.
Thank you Jenny.
For item #2, the PI Form 1 online template just shows a checklist of the items for compliance. However, there is no option for uploading the energy and water data release form in the online template itself. Hoping for your kind assistance again.
True, there is not a place to upload it. This form is supposed to be signed at the end of the certification process, when the owner accepts the LEED certification. I would guess that it's either requested then, or it's not requested at all—just something to keep on file.
Anyone else have thoughts?
Hmm, you can always just go to the File Uploads area and park it there, if the form isn't showing you a specific area. I wouldn't sweat it too much, as the reviewers will let you know where to put if they can't find it.
Thank you Jenny and Tristan. I've made a similar inquiry to the USGBC and got a reply recently. Their advise is to select the "special circumstance" portion of the form (PI f1) in order for me to upload the document in that section. I just identified the nature of the form I uploaded in the narrative portion.
My project is a resort where
My project is a resort where it is divided into 3 buildings: main hotel building with rooms and f&b facilities,The other two buildings are supporting the recreation facilities like gym,spa etc.Is it required that I input these two buildings separately because when I input these under the 'OTHERS' category ,it takes it as a floor area which is not a part of hotel but separate facilities.But in reality it is a function of the hotel itself.Kindly advice.Thank You.
I would recommend reach out directly to Energy Star for guidance on how to rate your facility.
My understanding from past correspondence with them is that if there are multiple buildings associated with a hotel you should pursue a single rating for all structures. They should be able to confirm this, and also advise on how the space associated with the other buildings should be classified (if they are normal hotel amenities, they may tell you to enter all the floor area as "hotel").
Please register to use the forum.