-
Savings opportunities
Buildings with the potential for realizing cost-effective energy savings opportunities are strong candidates for this credit. The credit will take some effort, but buildings with an Energy Star rating between 40 and 70 are particularly good candidates for seeing a healthy payback.
Commissioning vs. auditing
This credit gives you the choice of engaging in commissioning or performing an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit, so start by deciding which is best for your project. Both processes are very doable and likely to result in energy and cost savings for your project building.
The auditing process is akin to an annual checkup where the doctor does some basic tests and asks you if you’ve noticed any problems. Commissioning is more like a full-fledge physical...
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.
30 Comments
Timing
I am pursuing certification for an existing convention center that is connected to a hotel. The hotel has a central plant that serves the convention center. This plant along with the entire mechanical system will be upgraded in both buildings during EAp2 Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance. The hotel is not under same ownership and will not pursue certification.
That all being said, I am struggling to determine when to perform the ASHRAE energy audits - before or after the mechanical upgrade? Since the central plant is located outside the project boundary, does that affect whether or not this system may be audited and commissioned? Does the planned commissioning need to begin before the upgrade?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Jessica,
The answer to your question is really more of a timing one than anything else...
Are you pursing EA 2.2 or 2.3? Also, what does the PP look like in comparison to the upgrade schedule? If you go for EA 2.2 this will be something of concern considering that you must impliment any findings - you'll have to wait for both the upgrade construction, the audit, the associated findings and then come up with a plan for the no/low findings as well as a capital plan to deal with the lower value measures (and reasoning why measures were chose and others weren't).
In terms of Certification, the upgrade timing won't matter besides the ENERGY STAR score upgrade you may receive by waiting. THat said, you'd have to wait a substantial proportion of 12 months after the upgrade in order for Portfolio Manager to see those lowered energy bills and then for the average to come down as a result.
Does that make sense?
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit - auditor?
Does the ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit have to be conducted by a licensed auditor or can it be conducted by a group of energy engineers?
Adam, LEED does not have specific requirements on who does the audit. It can be done in-house, and we have some tips on doing that successfully above, in the Checklists tab.
timeline for investigation and analysis
My clients have prepared six-sigma projects for improvement that have a timeline of 5 years (since 2006). The building is 20 yrs old and even back then, facilities management had been re-assessing and implementing investigation and analysis for upgrades/maintenace to ensure system performance. The building is sizeable and since it is occupied, all upgrades and maintenance activities need to be scheduled so as not to disrupt normal operations.
My queries:
1) Is it necessary that the investigation and analysis be done within the performance period, or would it be acceptable to have it even earlier (2006) with some projects being implemented within the performance period, and some after?
2) There are other improvements that were part of an audit done more recently, but the scope and documentation is not as substantial as the six-sigma projects. Should we include these projects or will including these just make it more confusing for the reviewer?
Hoping to hear from you. We intend to submit very soon.
...just to add, the guidebook mentions that a Level II Audit conducted within a 5 year period is acceptable. There is no mention of this flexibility for commissioning plans - "retrocommissioing of the building must be conducted during the performance period" (p171 LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. Reference Guide)
My other query:
3) If option 1 is chosen, will the commissioning plan be accepted if this was done within the past 5 years - as is the case for Level II Audit?
Pablo,
we've seen some interesting feedback on this credit in reference to exactly the issue you struggle with. Here is my recommendation: Whaterver you do be very clear and follow the ref guide to a T.
We assumed that a mix of auidts and RCx activities should count as well as an updated Audit report but they came back saying that consistency needed to be taken. They essentially said we couldn't flip flop between strategies for 2.1 and 2.2 as well as between 5 and 2 year periods.
What does that mean for you...? Don't flip between RCx and Audits for what you did 5 years ago and what you are going to "update" for the purposes of LEED.
The scope and documentation will need to be very strong for 2.2 but 2.1 is relatively easy in comparison from a proof perspective so don't worry if you don't have the strongest evidence of robust PM strategies. You WILL however need to follow the ASHRAE Audit requests from the Ref Guide as letter of the law.
Audits from 5 years ago work but RCx reports from that long ago don't fly and therefore you'll need a full RCx again if you choose that route.
Follow up with any subsequent questions you may have and I'll do my best to answer them - hope this helps in the meantime.
Shane
One more thing I forgot to mention - see the comment thread below from my colleague Matt Macko and Dan Ackerstein - should provide a clear example of the difference between LEED intent and what we've been hearing from GBCI.
Audits Around the World
All,
I'm trying to compile a list of energy audit providers outside of the US. Does anyone have recommendations or know of databases that help locate auditing service providers by geography?
Thanks,
Jenny
Hi Jenny.
I checked with all my contacts and this is a stumper.
At this time I do not know if the list you are looking for exists.
If you do find such a list, or begin to create one yourself, please let me know. . . maybe I could help.
Another valuable list would be to compile "typical costs associated with an ASHRAE Level I & II energy audit". The feedback I have received from my customers is that the cost of energy audits are all over the place.
FuGu Energy out of Qatar (www.fugu-energy.com) does energy work in the Gulf. Contact Marwan Chaar.
Eaton's EMC has conducted energy audits around the world. We have audited most recently in Japan and Korea. Contact me if you would like me to put you in touch with our lead on energy audits: sonrisatlucero@eaton.com.
Retrocommissioning - Systems Requirements
I am working on a cultural center performance space in San Diego with very few HVAC system components. For ventilation, there are exhaust fans that induce outdoor air into the building through the operable doors and windows. For cooling, there are two window air conditioning unit that serve a small portion of the building (one multi-occupant office and a computer server room); the remainder of the building does not have any cooling. There is no central heating system in the building. There is a domestic hot water heater as well as a lighting system. There is also a 2 kw photovoltaic system on the roof.
We are interested in pursuing the retrocommissioning option of EA2.1, as well as EA2.3. Will these points be possible with these limited systems? Do these systems meet the intent of EA2.1 and EA2.3?
Absolutely Nate, especially since the PV system can be part of the process. The LEED reference guide does not specify a minimum quantity or size of system to qualify for the credit. Although, I would encourage your team to be diligent with whichever path is chosen. Seemingly small scale Retrocommissioning projects can sometimes turn out to be quite tricky.
Energy audits of current practices
I am currently working on a warehouse going for LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 certification. The facility is only 5 years old and was built with energy savings in mind and has been maintained well. The facilities manager at the warehouse has been working on making the facility greener and more energy efficient now for the last 4 years. He has implemented many green practices and energy savings techniques and the facility easily meets many of the LEED EBOM requirements.
Is it reasonable to set a performance period that began a year ago and document all the improvements he has made as responses to a "theoretical" energy audit performed at that time?
Otherwise our energy audit would comprise a very short list of possible improvements, and any capital intensive improvements would have a time frame of 5+ years as equipment got older and needed to be phased out...
Thanks!
Since there's no criteria for finding a minimum number or type of energy conservation measures, my advice is to perform the audit in a looking-forward manner, and then include as supplemental information an overview of the measures implemented pre-LEED to explain the assumed dearth of possible measures. You might run into trouble in trying to retroactively assemble the type of information that needs to go into the audit (which could bring about avoidable risk during the review process) and also could miss out the possibility of finding new opportunities.
I don't think you can skip the audit. Was the building ever commissioned at the end of construction? Check out the LEED Interpretations for credits 2.1-2.3. There are two interesting ones there that might apply to a project of this type:
Posting Date: 5/9/2011
ID Number: 10036
Q: For EAc2.1, if the building owner implements system upgrades prior to the completion of the Master List of Findings, can these strategies still count for this credit?
A: These strategies can contribute to the credit. The project team should supply a summary of the actions, date of implementation, and include a list of the low-cost / no-cost recommendations. This can be supplied as a supplement to the Master List of Findings if not reported in that document.
Posting Date: 4/27/2009
ID Number: 2565
...The project building is eligible to earn EA Credit 2.1 without conducting commissioning or energy auditing activities within 5 years of the end of the performance period if the conditions outlined in A, B, and C below are satisfied: A) The project building can demonstrate that energy performance, when normalized for key variables such as occupancy, operating hours, and weather, has improved or remained steady since the initial commissioning activities. B) Initial commissioning activities occurred within 10 years of the end of the performance period. C) At least one of the following is true: 1. The project team's is currently implementing an ongoing commissioning program that meets the requirements for EA Credit 2.3 (e.g., rises above the level of standard preventive maintenance activities to proactive, continuous functional testing) 2. The project building currently has an Energy Star rating of 95 or greater Projects using this approach to demonstrate compliance with EA Credit 2.1...
GBCI review proceedure for ASHRAE level 2 audit and report
I am working on an ASHRAE level 2 audit and report for credit EA 2.1.
I have a couple of questions related to how reviewers are approaching their review of this document.
The most recent version of the document called "ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits" that I can find was published in 2004. QUESTION: Is this the version referenced by reviewers?
The ASHRAE 'Procedures' document contains a lot of language like "generalized procedures," "generally include," "forms in this section are intended to provide general guidance," etc.
QUESTION: So how closely do reviewers expect the report to follow these guideline report requirements?
An example of what I mean above is that under Level I audits (assumed to be part of any Level II audit) - the ASHRAE 'Procedures' document says "The report for a Level I analysis should contain the building characteristics and energy use summary as well as the following. 1. Quantification of savings potential from changing to a different utility price structure."
QUESTION: Is this kind of thing expected to be covered (as well as all the other items enumerated in the procedures guide)? Or should I simply look to the example on pages 174-175 of the "LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations and Maintenance" 2009 for guidance on the critical things to include in the report?
I find I am really confused about what a credit reviewer might be expecting.
Hope you can help! Thanks, Jean
A follow-up question: The reference guide says to "Use the forms provided in ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits to document the audit procedure
and results.” Whereas the ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits says that use of the forms is optional. Do these specific forms have to be submitted to LEED in order to achieve this credit?
Jean - As a general rule, the expectation is that you have conducted an ASHRAE Level I process that includes all of the key elements articulated by the 'Procedures' document. That being said, the use of the ASHRAE forms is definitely optional, and many projects create their own forms/reports/etc... rather than using the ASHRAE ones. Also, I would also encourage you to review the actual EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. submittal template to assess what portions of the report are specifically required for your EBOM submittal package. The template actually requires only specific deliverables from the report, rather than the document in its entirety. Ultimately, whats most important isn't the form or format, its that you follow ASHRAE procedures to investigate energy use patterns and opportunities in your building in a way that generates useful insights and guides decisionmaking. If you've done that, you're 90% of the way to meeting the credit requirements already; the last 10% is putting things into EBOM shapes and colors. Hope that helps.
Incorrect payback period
We have already got review comments for our project.However,we now realized that in the simple payback calculations we have by mistake given a totally wrong value for the 'lighting retro fitting'.Is it acceptable by USGBC that we change the value and amend the payback period??My worry is that it will be totally different from what we submitted previously.
It's never too late to change your calculations to better reflect your project. LEED works best when dealing with the most accurate information and it sounds like your lighting retrofit calculation is better now than when you submitted it. Is your team pursuing EAc2.2?
EAc2.1 - ASHRAE Route
Hi LEED users.... wondering if our EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. project chooses Option 2, to complete or update an existing ASHRAE level 2 audit and report findings, does this fulfill requirements to also complete EAc2.2 and EAc2.3? In essence, can we implement and conduct ongoing commissioning for the project if the ASHRAE level 2 audit was conducted in lieu of traditional retrocomissioning to fulfill EAc2.1? Thanks!
Hi Miriam,
You can definitely earn EAc2.2 by implementing the low-cost, no-cost measures uncovered by the audit, planning for capital improvements, and meeting the other bits of the requirements (e.g., education). But, the Reference Guide makes clear that you cannot earn EAc2.3 through repetition of audit activities. That credit can only be earned if you are undertaking the full commissioning process.
EAc2.1 for new buildings
The requirements language around EAc2.1 focuses on retro- and re-commissioning, and the Reference Guide states that retrocommissioning must be conducted during the performance period (p. 171).
It seems reasonable to assume that the initial building commissioning (for a new building) can also satisfy the requirements of this credit, if done within the performance period (which can be at maximum 2 years). This isn't clearly stated, but it seems reasonable. Thoughts?
I think that may be true, as long as they initial Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. process takes care to reflect occupancy realities. Cx in EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. has a large component that is about ensuring that space uses are consistent with their imagined uses during the design process - and if they are not, that conditions in the spaces are appropriate for actual uses. It's a subtle element, but we find it is extremely important in effective retrocommissioning.
Pg. 172-173 of the Reference Guide indicates that if you've conducted an ASHRAE Level II audit within the past 5 years, you don't need to redo the audit within the performance period if no relevant chances in operations have been observed. Those this 5-year allowance is linked to Option 2, ASHRAE Level II Audit, it stands to reason that it should also apply to Option 1, Commissioning Process.
I think this question reflects to the language mentioned in the first couple pages of the Ref Guide which states that the performance period is the most recent unbroken period of sustainable operations. Since most Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. work happens before occupancy I don't think it is reasonable to assume that initial building Cx work can fly for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2.1 (think Core and Shell construction). An audit probably wouldn't work for this credit either since again, the building was not technically "operating" when Testing & Balance (TAB) occurred and Cx rarely goes farther than equipment start-up.
Jen, All,
Here is the response I just received after taking your advice and what seems reasonable for pursuing the 5 year grace period under Option A...
Note: This was a submittal under EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. not EBOM 2009 although the language is virtually identical.
"The proposed alternative compliance path outlined by the project team does not meet the credit requirements. As stated on page 211 of the LEED-EBOM Reference Guide, 2008 Edition, retro-commissioning of the building must be conducted during the performance period as specified in the LEED-Online Submittal Template. Also stated in the reference guide, the investigation and analysis phase of the commissioning process draws careful attention to all aspects of the current operations and maintenance program. Therefore, the retro-commissioning activities performed more than two years preceding the project submittal shall not be included for compliance of this credit."
I see their point...
Thoughts anyone???
Boy, I'd push back on that one Matt. The reviewer seems to be really adhering to the letter of the law in this instance, rather than the spirit of the law. The original idea behind the 5-year sunset provision was to ensure that projects that completed RCx before engaging with LEED weren't asked to perform it again just to earn the points. By allowing them to leverage their existing findings and update those findings appropriately, USGBC created a sensible solution that really has no downside. Furthermore, there is no logical reason that the path should exist for an ASHRAE Level II and not RCx - even if those processes are not identical, the credit language treats them as effectively interchangeable. So, assuming your RCx work was complete in all other respects, and that you've documented updates to that report and findings as directed by the Ref Guide, I'd encourage you to stick to your guns here and ask the reviewer to reconsider. Perhaps there is a compelling argument as to the difference between RCx and an ASHRAE Level 2 that led them to this conclusion - I'd be very interested in hearing it if that's the case.
Hope that helps,
Dan
Please register to use the forum.