How energy-efficient is your project building compared with the national average for similar building types? If your project building is already performing well, you may only need to document that performance in order to meet the prerequisite. If your building is relatively inefficient, on the other hand, may have to make operational changes or capital investments to make some improvements. Project teams with underperforming buildings may start by performing an energy audit to identify areas of waste, and the best opportunities for improving efficiency. There are a number of federal and regional programs that offer rebates or other financial incentives for energy upgrades, so capital investments may see relatively fast paybacks.
Accessing the Energy Star Portfolio Manager website.
All project teams are required to use EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager to track a minimum 12 months of data for all energy consumption. The data are then benchmarked based on source Energy Use Intensity (EUI) to show compliance. Source EUI incorporates efficiency factors into an analysis of the total amount of raw fuel (or “source energy”) used to operate the building, rather than using the more limited measure of site energy, which reflects the amount of utility heat and electricity consumed at the building. Most buildings will benchmark through Energy Star and document the prerequisite through Case 1. Those not eligible for an Energy Star rating will use summary data generated in Portfolio Manager in conjunction with protocols provided by USGBC to complete benchmarking calculations and document the prerequisite and credit through Case 2.
Thirteen building space types are eligible for Energy Star ratings. Typically, if at least 50% of the building’s gross floor areaGross floor area (based on ASHRAE definition) is the sum of the floor areas of the spaces within the building, including basements, mezzanine and intermediate‐floored tiers, and penthouses wi th headroom height of 7.5 ft (2.2 meters) or greater. Measurements m ust be taken from the exterior 39 faces of exterior walls OR from the centerline of walls separating buildings, OR (for LEED CI certifying spaces) from the centerline of walls separating spaces. Excludes non‐en closed (or non‐enclosable) roofed‐over areas such as exterior covered walkways, porches, terraces or steps, roof overhangs, and similar features. Excludes air shafts, pipe trenches, and chimneys. Excludes floor area dedicated to the parking and circulation of motor vehicles. ( Note that while excluded features may not be part of the gross floor area, and therefore technically not a part of the LEED project building, they may still be required to be a part of the overall LEED project and subject to MPRs, prerequisites, and credits.) (excluding parking lots and garages) is classified as one of the following space types, the project is eligible and must use Case 1:
To ensure national comparability, climate data is used to normalize energy consumption to compare the project building to similar buildings in similar climate zones, eliminating potential regional variations. However, it may be easier in certain regions to improve a building’s efficiency based on city or state policies. For example, savings achieved through energy-efficiency improvements may qualify your project for state and local utility incentive programs. Ask local utility providers about incentives and rebate programs.
The updated Case 2 calculator (see resources section) uses Labs21 to facilitate benchmarking for buildings with laboratory spaces. The calculator includes specific directions to walk you through the process.
Yes, international projects that are comprised of ratable space under Energy Star must still pursue the EAp2/EAc1 via Case 1.
Generally, it is not possible to benchmark multiple buildings as a single entity on Portfolio Manager for Case 1 or for Case 2. Each building must be separately benchmarked as a standalone entity according to either Case 1 or Case 2 depending on the space type associated with each building. USGBC’s Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Projects is a good resource to reference in this type of scenario.
The first step is to enter the building and associated space characteristics on Portfolio Manager to see if the building is eligible for an Energy Star rating. If it is, you go with Case 1 and if not, go to the Case 2 calculator. Energy Star has published additional guidance for mixed-use buildings that is a great resource in this circumstance.
In this case it is a good idea to (1) reach out to Energy Star directly to determine if the structures should be benchmarked as a single building or two and then (2) reference the LEED Supplemental Guidance to the Minimum Program Requirements. If it is still unclear after those two steps are taken, it’s also a good idea to communicate with USGBC directly to confirm the best approach.
In order to use an Energy Star label for the streamlined path, the Label must have been awarded within 12 months of the LEED application submittal date. For example, if you receive label award notification from Energy Star on March 5, 2012, you can use the score associated with the label as long as you submit your application to GBCI on or before March 5, 2013.
Process loads generally may not be excluded from the building’s energy use for benchmarking purposes. However, depending on the appropriate compliance path, you may be able to normalize the energy use from process loads based on the relative activity level of the building operations. For example, if the building is a manufacturing facility, part of the benchmarking process will involve normalizing energy use based on the relative output of the facility. Use of CIRs in the case of special benchmarking for buildings with process loads is recommended.
For the LEED submission, provide a summary of submetered energy use for the project building along with the utility bills for the campus. Include a narrative summarizing the sub-metering approach and explaining the difference between the utility bills and the submetered energy use data included on Portfolio Manager, which commonly includes a spreadsheet showing the deductions from the total consumption used to show the energy attributable to the project, or how submeter readings for each separate entity add up to the whole reflected in the utility bills.
If you have a space that is submetered, is under separate management, and does not support the typical operations of the remaining portions of the building, this space may be excluded from the prerequisite.
When applicable variables change during the performance period, these changes must be recorded on Portfolio Manager to ensure accurate benchmarking of the building. When making updates to the space characteristics on Portfolio Manager, make sure to select “update” rather than “correct” and note the date when the updated space characteristic was first true. By selecting “update” the change in the building characteristic is only counted for the appropriate portion of the performance period rather than the whole thing. For example if 20% of the building space becomes vacant half way through the performance period, update the vacant space on Portfolio Manager so that the building was 100% occupied for half of the performance period and 80% occupied for the other half. In these circumstances, it is a good idea to provide a copy of the “Revision History” for affected spaces along with the prerequisite submittal.
For EAc6, the performance period should fall within 30 days of the latest performance period end date for all other credits and prerequisites. It should not follow the period of the Energy Star label associated with the streamlined path for EAp2.
The number of monitors in the building does not impact the number of computers entered into Portfolio Manager. The value for computers should reflect the total number of personal computers and servers in the office space. For example, if the office space includes 10 PCs, 5 laptops, and 25 monitors, the input for Portfolio Manager is 15 PCs.
For office buildings, if the vacant space is greater than 10% of the building area use the following guidance as indicated in the USGBC Reduced Occupancy Guidance document. For all other space types, no other changes are required for this credit.
Assess current performance and Energy Star eligibility. Benchmark current performance based on the option that applies to the project building. Make operational improvements or equipment upgrades to meet minimum energy performance requirements.
Benchmarking can typically be managed by in-house staff, reducing capital investment.
Review “15 O&M Best Practices for Energy-Efficient Buildings,” a helpful document published by Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) to assist facility managers and building owners with basic energy-efficiency issues.
Provide building operators with access to BOMA’s BEEP (Building Energy Efficiency Program) training webinars to maintain regular and effective training for personnel responsible for daily building operations.
Collect energy metering data for a minimum period of the most recent twelve months.
Be sure that information is copied accurately from utility bills, including start and end dates of the statement period, and that you are using actual meter readings as opposed to estimated readings whenever possible. Replace estimated meter readings with actual meter readings once those statements are received. Exporting data inputs from Energy Star and graphing the utility data can help uncover data entry errors through visual comparison.
Energy Star requires precise data to describe the different space types in the building, including the square footage, number of occupants and computers, and other characteristics of daily operations. Careful inventory of these variables will result in a more accurate rating.
Energy metering data may be excluded for up to 10% of the building’s gross floor area if that space is sub-metered and used for an independent purpose unrelated to typical business operations, such as a cafeteria; or used as a computer data center.
LEED defers to Energy Star practices and standards to generate a Portfolio Manager rating or score. Where questions arise regarding this score, review Energy Star technical guidance documents and contact Energy Star customer service to facilitate the process.
If you initially get a low Energy Star score, start your process by identifying no- and low-cost operational changes to reduce energy consumption. If your building is an energy hog, it’s more likely that these opportunities will exist, and focusing on them to start with will help you go the distance. For instance, simply changing heating and cooling set points by one or two degrees and getting into the practice of turning off lights and office equipment when not in use will have dramatic effects on overall building energy use.
Building owners can reduce overall operating costs by optimizing energy performance; many operational energy-efficiency improvements will provide instant or short-term paybacks.
Pursuing commissioning through EAc2 will help identify energy-efficiency improvements, and will pay off particularly well in inefficient buildings.
Many state and federal agencies offer rebates or other financial incentives to companies that undertake energy-efficiency initiatives.
For building types covered by Energy Star but located outside the U.S., use Case 1. Portfolio Manager proivdes a list of non-U.S. locations, but it is not complete. If the location for an international project is not listed, consult ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendices B and B to determine a comparable U.S. city.
Continue entering monthly metering data into Portfolio Manager to update the building data.
Closely monitor energy consumption and correct any conditions contributing to energy waste.
Track any changes in occupancy or space uses, if any, to adjust Portfolio Manager inputs accordingly.
Expect no costs for in-house calculations or tracking and minimal costs when using a consultant to complete calculations using provided data.
Provide documentation of the Energy Star rating or certificate award from the EPA.
You must generate an Energy Star score if the building type is listed as an eligible space in Portfolio Manager. Case 2 is not allowed for buildings eligible for Energy Star.
Complete the EAp2/EAc1 Case 2 Calculator to demonstrate the building’s level of energy efficiency.
Use figures generated in Portfolio Manager to complete the EAp2/EAc1 Case 2 Calculator spreadsheet.
If the building type is listed in Portfolio Manager, but is not eligible for an Energy Star score, then you will most likely be able to use the Option 1 of the EAp2/EAc1 Case 2 Calculator. Complete the “Eligibility” Tab of the Option EAp2/EAc1 Case 2 Calculator to confirm which option you should use.
Provide one of the following data summaries:
If determining the Energy Baseline Including Historical Data, the three years of data must fall within six years of the beginning of the performance period.
If the project building type is not listed in Portfolio Manager, and more than 10% of the building space must be entered into Portfolio Manager as “other,” then you will most likely need to use the Option C calculator. Complete the “Eligibility” Tab of the EAp2/EAc1 Case 2 Calculator to confirm which option you should use.
Industry reports may provide useful benchmarking comparisons and eliminate the need for you to locate three comparable buildings on your own. The International Facility Management Association (IFMA) publishes benchmarking reports that are available on its website.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
To establish the minimum level of operating energy efficiency performance relative to typical buildings of similar type to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use.
For buildings eligible to receive an energy performance rating using the EPA’s ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager tool, achieve an energy performance rating of at least 69. If the building is eligible for an energy performance rating using Portfolio Manager, Option 1 must be used.
Have energy meters that measure all energy use throughout the performance period of all buildings to be certified. Each building’s energy performance must be based on actual metered energy consumption for the LEED project building(s). A full 12 months of continuous measured energy data is required.
Calibrate meters within the manufacturer’s recommended interval if the building owner, management organization or tenant owns the meter. Meters owned by third parties (e.g., utilities or governments) are exempt.
For buildings with a primary space type not eligible to receive an energy performance rating using Portfolio Manager, comply with 1 of the following:
Demonstrate energy efficiency performance that is better than 69% of similar buildings (69th percentile or better) by benchmarking against national source energySource energy is the total amount of raw fuel required to operate a building; it incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses for a complete assessment of a building's energy use. data provided in the Portfolio Manager tool as an alternative to energy performance ratings. Projects outside the U.S. may use a local benchmark based on source energy from their country's national or regional energy agency. Follow the detailed instructions in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance, 2009 Edition.
Demonstrate energy efficiency performance by determining an alternative rating score using the Portfolio Manager tool to report the building's energy use data from the performance period. Follow the detailed instructions in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance, 2009 Edition.
Enter energy use data during the performance period for at least 1 year into Portfolio Manager to determine the “weather-normalized source energy intensity”. Use this value in the offline calculator to determine the percent reduction from the streamlined baseline.
Enter at least 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data into Portfolio Manager in addition to the current year’s data to determine the “weather-normalized source energy intensity” for each year. Use these values in the offline calculator to determine a baseline using the historical energy use data of the project building.
In addition to the historical data used in Option 2b, provide energy use data for at least 3 other buildings with similar uses over at least a 2-year period to determine the “average energy performance of a similar building” in Portfolio Manager. Enter this data into the offline calculator.
Achieve energy efficiency performance better than the minimum requirements listed above; points are awarded according to the table below.
Have energy meters that measure all energy use throughout the performance period of all buildings to be certified. Each building’s energy performance must be based on actual metered energy consumption for both the LEED project and all comparable buildings used for the benchmark. A full 12 months of continuous measured energy data is required.
Use the Portfolio Manager tool available on the ENERGY STAR website to benchmark the project even if it is not eligible for an EPA rating: http://www.energystar.gov/benchmark.
Existing building commissioning and energy audits will help identify areas of building operations that are not efficient. Implement energy-efficient retrofits and energy-saving techniques to reduce the building’s energy use. Energy-efficient equipment such as office equipment, maintenance equipment and appliances will aid in the reduction of energy waste. Employ the use of meters on major mechanical systems to effectively monitor the energy consumption of each.
In addition to efficiency improvements, consider renewable energy options as a way to minimize the building’s environmental impact.
EPA's system for helping you track and improve energy efficiency across your entire portfolio of buildings.
A helpful guide for use of Portfolio Manager to track energy utility data.
A helpful guide to assist facility managers with best practices for common energy-efficiency issues.
Required reference document for DES systems in LEED energy credits.
Portfolio Manager explains the eligibility requirements for tracking and benchmarking energy use over time in commercial and institutional buildings.
Calculator for LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems., optimizing energy efficiency performance.
IFMAInternational Facility Management Association is the largest international facilities managers' organization.
The Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA) has a program called BOMA Energy Efficiency Program (BEEP). BEEP
ENERGY STAR offers free online training to help you improve the energy performance of your organization.
ASHRAE publishes widely used standards and publishes the ASHRAE Journal.
Complete LEED Online documentation for achievement of EAp2 on a certified Gold LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 project in Denver, Colorado.
This annotated sample of the LEED Online form demonstrates how to document EAp2 and EAc1.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.-2009 EA credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms (newest):
Version 3 forms:
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
We had to use the Case 2 calculator because our building was too small to qualify for an Energy Star rating. Can anyone tell me why using the LEED Case 2 calculator yields us 33 percentile points above the national average (good for 12 EAc1 points) when our statement of energy performance from Energy Star for the same usage period shows our comparison Source EUI performance as -40% (40% better than the National Median Source EUI)?
To look at it from another perspective, consider if our building had been 4,999 square feet. We would still not be able to use the Energy Star rating system because we were under 5,000 square feet. Yet if we added only 1 square foot and changed nothing else, we would suddenly qualify for 3 additional points under EAc1. Yet we did not become more energy efficient, we only became a tiny (insignificant) bit larger. That does not seem fair to me. The Case 2 calculator should yield the same number of points as the Energy Star rating system when every other building operational and performance parameter remains the same.
My point remains this: Use of the Case 2 calculator versus the Energy Star rating system clearly can result in significantly different EAc1 points when everything else is held constant. In my opinion, that is not fair.
Any comments on this?
Couldn't agree more Peter! USGBC and EnergyStar do not see eye to eye on this credit/prerequisite and this is just ONE of the reasons why. Although the offline calculator is based on the data that Energy Star provides it still does not compare exactly. Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do about the size of your building or the way that its benchmarked. The best thing to do is stick with the scenarios that gives you a better assessment and be sure to "have your ducks in a row" in case you get feedback from the reviewer.
Is EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. limited to certifying the WHOLE building? What LEED option is available for a small 3500 sf office leased from a Building Owner within a 15,000 sf building if there aren't going to be any renovations or upgrades?
Yes, I'm afraid EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. is only for whole buildings or groups of buildings. It intentionally excludes parts of buildings, including individual tenant spaces. At this time existing tenant spaces have no option to certify in LEED on their own.
Hi Michelle, of course you have the LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED CI) route. You might want to do a feasibility analysis on it and see how the space does. Depending on the conditions and efficiency of the space it may not be too bad.
Jeff, to use CI, the tenant must be renovating at least 60% of floor area to be certified. If there is no renovation, as Michelle indicated, CI isn't an option.
Michelle, there currently isn't an existing-buildings certification option for individual tenants, aside from convincing a building owner to do EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.. (Our own office is in a similar situation: the two floors of our office are CI Gold and Platinum, and we would like to be in an EBOM-certified office, but the building owner isn't interested.)
At the risk of sounding like a traitor, BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. In-Use (part 3) does allow for the certification of individual tenant spaces.
Overall, I'm not a big fan of BREEAM In-Use because I don't feel its three part format creates the same impact as EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.. That said, it is actually much easier (and cheaper) to achieve a BREEAM In-Use rating because it has one rating for the building, one for the building management and a third for the tenant.
That said, the part 3 rating probably requires a tenant to act more sustainably than EBOM does. It is a good add-on to a CI rating.
This link gives a good overview of the rating system: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20In%20Use/BES_5058_Issue_1_2_B...
"In life you usually get what you pay for", but for sophisticated users BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. In Use does provide a benchmark pretty quickly where a property stands. Then you've got a lot of work to do (with no real support or examples from BREEAM on what you should do) to become more sustainable. The link posted didn't work for me, this one might work better - http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=295
We are working on three similar buildings in Serbia. Energy consumption of all three buildings is being uploading to the Energy Star Portfolio manager. Thing is that one building achieved score of 64 which is almost 10 points less than other two. Reason is, that this building has a quite extensive roofed atrium inside and therefore office sqft/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. ratio is lower than in an average office building without an atrium inside.
Has anybody an idea how to deal with it?
Thank you in advance!
One option is to separate out the roofed atrium space, and its associated floor area, in the building description within ENERGY STAR and assign it a different type of space usage.
Just to make sure we are on the right track, the "USGBC's alternative energy performance calculator for non-ratable buildings" that Mike is talking about is the "EAc1 EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 Case 2 Calculator V1.xls" found in the credit resources in LEED Online? I haven't been able to find a document called "USGBC's alternative energy performance calculator for non-ratable buildings" and I would like to make sure I have all the documentation.
If anyone can confirm my suspicion or direct me to the appropriate document it would be much appreciated.
My client operates a prosthetics manufacturing plant. There is no benchmark in ENERGY STAR for this kind of facility. I know it will not be eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating. I need to take the EUI path, but am not sure which building type to use.
I think the closest ENERGY STAR comes to addressing this facility type is with the Manufacturing Plant Energy Performance Tool for Pharmaceutical Plants, but that is a stretch. I could enter the plant as an "other" space type in Portfolio Manager and get the EUI there, but I am afraid that will not do it justice. Any recommendations?
If you're pursuing EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. for this building then I recommend you use the USGBC's alternative energy performance calculator for non-ratable buildings, available from the USGBC site and within LEED Online.
Within that tool you can benchmark relative to one of three alternatives: 1) the generic "other" category within Portfolio Manager as you described, 2) your own facility's energy history, or 3) energy use of comparable facilities. Each of these options has their pros & cons, so each should be explored and you should choose the method best suited to your project.
Correct me if I'm reading the reference guide incorrectly, but it's misleading for Case 2 "Option A, B, C" - the EAp2 Case 2 calculator from LEED Online appears to box projects into either Option A, B, or C depending on the space types - if your project can comply with Option A (alternative benchmark score) then you cannot CHOOSE to use Option 2C. Is this correct?
Kim, in my experience, I have heard projects take various routes for the same space type in question. However, the interpretation from the calculator will give you the 53 options of spaces and if 90% of the building does not meet one option than Option 1 cannot be taken.
I am not sure how to approach a recent discovery. We had 12 months of metered energy data (electricity and gas) for our LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. registered office building, but we were way off the minimum efficiency performance for EAp2. Then, I found out that the office building's electricity meter - this building is located on a college campus- was erroneously including six streetlights (400W lamps each) located on a neighboring street that IS NOT a part of the project site. These lights automatically turn on at dusk 365 days of the year and were responsible for 50% of each months electricity use (by my estimates on average night time hours at this latitude)! Taking away the electricity consumed by the streetlights, the office building meets the pre-requisite plus earns EA points. My question is do I now have to wait an additional 12 months, after the college either installs a deduct meter on the streetlight breaker or separates them completely from my office building? It seems reasonable to me, since there is 3rd party data on the average night-time hours per month for the past year, that I could calculate the electricity consumed by the streetlights and subtract that from our monthly electric bills. Any opinions on an appropriate path forward?
I think that you really need to submit a project specific 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 for this situation. Because you would have to estimate the energy use from the street lights for the past 12 months, it would be best to get a blessing from GBCI upfront.
We have a situation where we would like to utilize the multiple building approach as a group project for 2 buildings and the surrounding site. The 2 buildings are metered under 1 gas and 1 electric meter installed by the utilities. If we were to sub-meter one of the building’s gas and electric usage, can we avoid purchasing another sub-meter for the other building if we subtract our sub-meter readings from the main utility meter’s readings?
Hi John, I had a similar situation with a gas meter between two buildings and I was told that I could not take that approach. I would suggest sub metering the buildings separately. Any body else want to chime in?
One of 4 fairly identical buildings has a Data Center in 1/3 of it. It is not separately metered - problem for Energy Star, as the Data must be separately metered from the rest of that building - right? is there a way around this requirement?
Reason being is the State of CA is considering removing the Data Center in a few months but won't commit either way -they just want the 4 buildings LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. by 2013. I cannot get an Energy Star score without a meter so do I tell the owner to put one in, in the hopes they keep the Data Center or not register at all until the State decides what to do?
As the parking lot, open space, etc. are part of the common shared space, the rest of the buildings will have to wait until I put a meter in and wait another 12 months – right? At that time, I won't need it metered separately, so putting in a "data meter" will be a waste of time and money - right?
FYI - without a meter and inputting projections, the ES score is a "100". If I register it as an office as it probably will be one, ES is a "1". Basically, the change in status will not be known and I don't want to waste money on a meter.
Thanks for your help!
No way around the energy star requirement. You could opt for filling it in with estimates for now since you are not submitting for LEED or Energy Star Label immediately more for your on knowledge on feasibility.
I am not following you question regarding parking lots? In Energy Star terms you need to benchmark this space if it is not currently sub metered. If it is sub metered then you do not have to include it in the building benchmark. For LEED you need to include this energy use regardless assuming the "owner" as control of it.
Because you are receiving scores like that, there is something clearly wrong with the meter configuration you have set up. Hope this helps!
I'm inquiring in regards to server room spaces within an office building up for LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.. We have a portion of our server rooms that are submetered and a portion that are not. The metered server rooms are made up installations ranging in size from 154 sq ft to 1,900 sq ft.
First question: is there a lower size limit to what can be considered as "data center" space?"
The second question is in regard to 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).. I have been told that there is a UPS, but that our metering covers the input energy. Is this acceptable or does the UPS output need to be metered?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
For your first question: refer to the definition of "data center" in Energy Star terms. This is typically not a server room or closet although commonly mistaken. Data Centers typically have raised floors, separate HVAC and air distribution systems.
On your second question, the sub-metering must be on the output of the UPS in order to receive the correct Energy Star Score.
You can always take the alternative paths to meeting this credit. to get passed Energy Star
what is the alternative path? if it is an office building, isn't energy star required? I have the same issue as described: office building with a data center (bank building)
We have used a modest amount of cooking gas in the canteen of our office building. Should we be counting this in the energy use for the Energy Star rating?
Yes - Energy Star requires you to input all energy sources used by the building. Gas used in a commercial kitchen is part of the equation.
As a general follow-on to Dan's response, it's also easy to overlook the need to include energy sources that are supplied to the building in discrete deliveries, rather than through a metered connection -- things like diesel for generators or fire pumps, liquid propane, or even wood pellets, etc.
I noticed that the Case 2 Calculator has not been updated since the November Portfolio Manager update. Will buildings still be benchmarked against the average source EUI (instead of median source EUI)? We have a customer building in the entertainment/culture category and if we go by the case 2 calculator, which has an avg. source EUI of 265 to benchmark against, the project gets 15 or so points. If we benchmark against the median source EUI of 94, which is now in Portfolio Manager, the project doesn't even meet the EAp2 pre-req. Which should we go by?
We have a similar situation going on - has anyone discovered a solution? We have a large office building that includes a cafeteria & fitness center (<10% of the area) so we have to use Case 2. The source EUI is almost identical to a neighboring office building of similar size on the same campus (which is achieving an Energy Star rating of 85+), but we are comparing it against an adjusted source EUI of 207 kBtu/sf and not even meeting the prereq. Any ideas???
We have the exact same issue with a medical device facility.
Would you guys be interested in sharing information so we can all get comparable data?
If interested please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Jenny - I think in your case, you need to use the offline calculator for LEED purposes. The baseline source EUI of 94 on your statement of energy performance is just the standard baseline for "Other" buildings, so using the offline calculator gives you the specific breakdown of baseline source EUI's for all space types within the "other" calculator.
For Kimerlby and Three Consultoria, these are different issues, Kimberly I would advise reaching out to the neighboring office to ask what they used to benchmark against.
And for the medical device facility I'd see the other comments for this prerequisite regarding a manufacturing facility.
I am involved in a Medical Device facility that is pursuing LEED evaluation. It was built and operates since three years ago outside the US. It has great green features so the owner wants to certify it as Existing Building which is appropiate in this case. 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:
"Unfortunately, we do not have an Energy Performance Indicator (EPI) for medical devices, but are looking into the feasibility of developing an EPI for those space types although that process will take a while."
¿Do you know of how to deal with this situation?
I would be really appreciate any answer.
It sounds like your building would fall under Case 2 Option 2. This path is available for buildings that aren't eligible for either an Energy Star rating or for Case 2 Option 1. You can use the Case 2 calculator, which is linked on the resources tab for this prerequisite, to determine if the building is eligible for Case 2 Option 1.
If you're not eligible for Case 2 Option 1, then your best bet is to benchmark via Case 2 Option 2C and that involves using both the building's historic energy consumption and energy consumption from 3 comparable buildings to generate a benchmark for comparison.
I have the EXACT same issue, medical device plant. Where are we supposed to get energy consumption form 3 comparable buildings?
Manufacturing poses a substantial challenge for EAp2; there simply won't be any easy answers in most instances. As Ben notes, starting with the historic baseline comparison is the path of least resistance, but many buildings will not be able to document the required reductions in energy consumption (after normalizing for production) during the prescribed time period. In that case, two places you might look for comparable buildings are trade associations and the EIA, which collects manufacturing energy consumption data for a variety of product types in much the same way that they collect data for commercial buildings. It's not easy to make this work, but it can be done (and a number of plants have done it recently).
Hope that helps,
I am analyzing a 40 story vertical mixed use tower for LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.. It is split 50/50 between office and condos-both under separate ownership, management, and metering. Based on supplemental guidance for MPR #2, LEED allows to define the project boundary as a partial building (basically excluding the condos).
My questions are:
a) Can we submit a partial building for energy star?
b) Can we submit the whole building Energy Star score for LEED?
I'm a little confused by how you worded your questions. Can you clarify your intentions here: for a) do you want a full ENERGY STAR certification (the plaque), which has its own review process separate from LEED, or just a score for your project?
Also, you mention "partial building" in a) but "whole building" in b). I would not recommend using different methods for ENERGY STAR and for LEED. Is that truly what you meant to ask?
If you can clarify this for me I'll address your overall questions.
There are four buildings that are leased by the State and one of the buildings currently has 25% if it as a Data Center. They will be removing the Data Center in June and I would like to know how to classify this building in Energy Star? Shall I just assume the Data Center is gone already and get a low score, that will change in June and go up or change the classification halfway through the Performance Period and consider it an upgrade? I will have to delete that part of the building and increase the Office Space footage at that time and I don't know if the new data will have to start another twelve month period?
The most accurate thing is to change the classification at the time when the data center is changed. You can edit the spaces in Energy Star...just use the edit feature and make sure to classify the change as an "update" (not a "correction", which presumes you used the wrong value initially and want to apply a new value to the entire benchmarking period). Energy Star uses the update information to adjust benchmarking based on the portion of the 12-month period where one value was true versus another.
In general, I think project teams overlook the fact that most multitenant buildings will have occupancy or space changes over the 12-month benchmarking period, and these changes should always result in an update to Energy Star inputs. It's a good idea to upload the space revision history in your LEED application to help reviewers see the adjustments you made over the course of the PP.
I did a basic walkthrough and counted the computers and people for the Energy Star data calculations and some questions came up.
1.) It was a Friday, so I expect the number of employees was down. Anyway, the Energy Star number fluctuates very easily and I can get a better score by just adding ten people. How acceptable is this? I cannot get a true number of employees from the State Tenant (too busy) so I am forced to make an assessment.
2.) The number of PC's really affects my Energy Star score as well. I want to be clear when I am counting so I need clarification on:
a. The number of PC's - does that include one hard drive and one monitor or if there is one hard drive and two to three monitors, do I use the monitor number?
b. Many of the employees were using laptops and I am assuming this number fluctuates. Do I guess on that number and add it to my PC total?
In closing, I feel like Energy Star scores are easily increased by increasing the number of people and PC's and so there would be room for inflated scores. I also feel like the people inputing the information, should have some credentials behind them, and it looks like this isn't required of either LEED or GBCI. Your thoughts?
Energy Star is a system to "normalize" all buildings in a certain type/category. It normalizes based on occupants, equipment and weather. Energy Star can be a helpful tool, but garbage info in = garbage info out.
LEED will not penalize you if you do your best to make an educated assumption on people and computers. We tend to assume 1 computer per person in an office setting. Those with two monitors are offset by those with laptops. Consider counting people on a per square foot basis if you are unsure of the exact numbers.
With regards to your last question about Energy and credentials:
For LEED you are allowed to enter in your own information into the portfolio manager. However, to be Energy Star rated officially, you will need to have the documents signed and submitted by a licensed professional. If you get above 75 points you get the Energy Star Plaque. Licensed Professional are bound by ethics laws.
I appreciate your information. I have noticed a lot of "pressure" from building Owners to just "put in" the information to get the credit - drives me crazy! I think integrity has to be number one and if we as AP's cannot be honest, then there's a problem! We are all our own LEED Police - I am glad there are Licenced Professional requirments for Energy Star and GBCI (although not for this prerequisite- yet).
So, to clarify the number of computers. If I noticed one person with one hard drive, three monitors and two laptops all going at the same time, I would input five PC's for that one person? I saw this more often than not.
That sounds like 3 computers to me. The Hard drive and two laptops pair to the 3 monitors, but use your judgement. What type of office is this that each occupant needs that much equipment.
The four buildings of 24000 sf each are all leased by the CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation. By the way, I know Larry quite well and have hired Glumac for two of my other projects - small world!
Thanks for your input!
Michelle - I would second Dylan's valuable comments and also note that the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. review process is designed to include cross-checks for many of the variables that go into Energy Star. The number of PC's is a tough thing for a reviewer to verify (they would certainly question a figure that differed significantly from the number of occupants), but in terms of the number of occupants, an inflated figure for Energy Star would have to be similarly inflated for WEp1, SSc4, your occupant comfort survey, etc... In addition, a wary reviewer might even count the workspaces on the floorplan to confirm the rough accuracy of the figure. Which is my long-winded way of saying its a lot of work to misrepresent occupancy in EBOM, and it is much more valuable to take the time & effort at the beginning to get accurate occupancy figures. From what you've said about the clients unwillingness to readily share those numbers and pressure to cut corners on this prerequisite, it sounds like you will have your hands full with this one!
Hope that helps,
Does anybody know what's LEED position about laboratories benchmarking using this tool?
I'm working on a lab certification project (EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.) and since our lab ratio is more than 10% of our gross area, we're not eligible for energy star rating. Using Labs21 tool seems to be the most apropriate way to benchmark us. Any similiar experience to share in here?
I think that the short answer is yes. The updated EAp2 Case 2 calculator here http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=221 walks you through the process of using Labs21 to benchmark in conjunction with the Case 2 calculator.
There is some more information about using Labs21 for LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. here http://labs21benchmarking.lbl.gov/.
The Labs21 approach works very well and is indeed the preferred compliance path for buildings with a significant amount of lab space. Take the time to be sure you fully digest the full definition of the various space type and area variables Labs21 uses - things like Lab Area Ratio and operating hours can have drastic impacts on your analysis, and defining your spaces accurately can save heartache down the road. The 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. sort is also somewhat counterintuitive, in that its an either-or situation rather than making smaller adjustments. But overall, Labs21 is a great resource and works with EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. very well.
Hope that helps,
Thank you all for answering!
I was a little confused about LEED acceptance when I was first introduced to LABs21. In their guidance it's written that "USGBC previously issued a credit ruling allowing the use of the Labs21, but that it does not apply to projects applying under the newer rating system".
After that I got in touch with USGBC and they told me that "The LEED Green Building Operations and Maintenance 2009 guide does not discuss LABs 21 benchmarking".
I was positively surprised checking the link Ben sent me in his reply (thank you!) showing a path from USGBC for using this tool. So, it's seems we're in the right way.
When I try to benchmark with Labs21, no results show up. Instead there is a small line that says: "Dataset Search retrieved no data". I tried again, selecting all boxes on the metrics criteria page to cast a broad net. Still no data. Could it be my climate (subarctic)? What now?
This is a ~7,000 gsf building with ~1,800 sf "labs", ~1,500 sf offices/conf. rm., ~3,000 , and ~2,500-3,000 sf residential. The rest is mechanical, storage, circulation, etc. I put "labs" in quotes because I do not know yet if they will "require 100% outdoor air".
It's almost certainly your 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. - I suspect Labs21 doesn't have many labs from that region in the database. Include all climate zones in your next benchmark attempt (rather than just the zone you are located in) and you should get plenty of results. There are plenty of labs in there in your Lab Area Ratio grouping.
Dear Experts, does anybody know, if I can use the "Case 1" of EAp2 (using Portfolio Manager) or not? The Project is located in Germany and registered at 2011 October, 21th.
The rating systems has changed in October 2011 with ACP rules, but there is no general ruling about ACP's abailable.
It would be very helpful, fy anybody can help. Thanks a lot. Tobias
Presuming that your project meets the basic requirements for Portfolio Manager, you can use Case 1. I have recently clarified the language regarding the application of the new ACP and they are NOT MANDATORY. We can continue to use Portfolio Manager for international projects - the ACP offers a new alternative.
You can go to this link where the USGBC confirmed that international projects are eligible to use Case 1 - http://www.leeduser.com/topic/international-projects-alternative-complia...
The important part is below.
"Thanks for your question about EAp2 and EAc1 for EB projects outside of the U.S. The language stating that Case 1 was not available to projects outside of the U.S. was erroneously included in the Rating System with ACPs. The case IS available to projects outside of the U.S. and the box stating otherwise has been removed from the Rating System."
Michael, Eric, thanks a lot! Finally I've received a official answer from the gbci:
"Thank you for contacting the Green Building Certification Institute. We apologize for any confusion on this matter. Your project team is able to show compliance with EAp2 through Case 1 - Projects Eligible for Energy Star Rating."
Hope that the rating system will be updated asap to avoid more confusion in this matter...
Best regards from Berlin, Tobias
Glad to hear you got through to the GBCI. The USGBC has new feedback forms for international projects and it might be useful to let them know about the confusion being created by not updating the documents accurately.
I understand the USGBC is going to have workshops with the international roundtable members to try and resolve some of the small, but very annoying, issues we have in Europe.
I have a caveat--I'm actually just discovering this now so I don't know whether there is an immediate solution, but Energy Star is requiring me to have a licensed engineer or architect to sign a statement in order to generate an energy star rating. All the architects and engineers on this project are licensed with international licenses. None of us have a US license. So I'm not sure how this will have to be sorted out. And since we just have 2 weeks to complete all the data and submit, and it requires the statements to be mailed in, again I'm not sure if we can manage this in time. I may figure this out myself within today but if anyone has advice, please comment thanks!
Melissa - You shouldn't need a PE or engineer to generate an Energy Star rating; the PE stamp is required if you are seeking to earn an Energy Star label, which is a step beyond the rating. You can document your Energy Star rating simply by generating a 'Statement of Energy Performance' via Portfolio Manager. Having a label (formal approval of your Energy Star rating by the EPA Energy Star folks) streamlines the documentation required for your EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. submittal but it is not required for EBOM.
Hope that helps,
Dan, I'm grateful for your reply. I'm afraid I need some more hand-holding. I had already generated the SEP, but it seems to be nearly blank. While the project page on line shows a rating of 95, the SEP Energy Performance Rating is N/A, and there is no 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. rating either. Of course I will need the energy intensity to complete the LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. application. I've got 12 months of meters input, here are no "alerts", I've shown 100% of coverage by meters so I'm stumped. Any ideas?
Dan, a cheerful update. There was a very odd solution. Though I'd uploaded a year's worth of data, I had to request a summary for the year ending in January, not February. I don't know why, its less than 12 months. But my rating and 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. popped up. Discovered this quite by accident. Anyway your comments were helpful.
This question is specifically about taking info from Portfolio Manager and putting into LEED online v.3. My project building is not eligible for Energy Star because it is an office building that is less than 5000 sq.ft. I completed the eligibility tab on the EAp.2 case 2 Calculator and it looks like we fall under Option 1. So I also completed entering energy data for 12 months into Portfolio Manager and printed out the Statement of Energy Performance. Do I then take the number from Statement of Energy Performance under "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." heading for "Source" and put into Section IV of calculator where it asks for "Project Building's annual weather-normalized Source ENergySource energy is the total amount of raw fuel required to operate a building; it incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses for a complete assessment of a building's energy use. Use Intensity" or do I use the number listed under "Energy Intensity" heading for "Site"? I can not find an explanation of these numbers on the Portfolio Mgr website. It makes a difference in whether my project complies with pre-req or does not. Thanks!
Rather than using the Statement of Energy Performance, I would set up a new "view" in the Facility Performance area of the building on Portfolio Manager that includes the building's Weather Normalized Source EnergySource energy is the total amount of raw fuel required to operate a building; it incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses for a complete assessment of a building's energy use. Use Intensity. This value may be slightly different than the one that shows up on the Statement of Energy Performance.
Don't use the Site Energy Use Intensity.
Also, it's a good idea to include a screenshot with your submittal documentation highlighting the weather normalized source energySource energy is the total amount of raw fuel required to operate a building; it incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses for a complete assessment of a building's energy use. use intensity on Portfolio Manager.
Thank you Ben for information. Unfortunately, using my building's weather normalized source energySource energy is the total amount of raw fuel required to operate a building; it incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses for a complete assessment of a building's energy use. intensity for the past year, we do not meet requirements under EAp1 Option 1. We made HVAC change and added insulation mid-year last year, so my only hope is that those changes will result in reduction of energy used as we proceed through this year. If I don't meet minimum requirements using Option 1, am I allowed to use Option 2? If so, do you know of best place to find help with using Option 2.
Janna - I'm pretty sure that you have to stick with Option 1 in this case. Option 2 is only triggered if more than 10% of the space is "All Other - Not Classified" or "Service". Hopefully you can pick up some efficiency with the new changes.
Our building is located in Egypt. It is a training facility specialized in IT programs for post-graduates and it is not eligible for Energy Star Benchmarking and the national average source energySource energy is the total amount of raw fuel required to operate a building; it incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses for a complete assessment of a building's energy use. data are unavailable. Our building is considered new as it is only occupied from 2 years. I do not know which option under EAp2 to follow. Since our building is located outside U.S., we have only four options to follow (2b, 2c and ACP option 1&2). The issue is we do not have historical data for the building for 3 years as it is only occupied from 2 years. The 3 years historical data is required by option 2b and 2c. For ACP option 1, it requires to benchmark against national average source energy data from the national energy agency which are not available. If national average source energy data are unavailable, then we have to follow ACP option 2 which requires to benchmark against the energy data for at least three comparable buildings which is extremely hard to get in Egypt. What am I suppose to do?
It seems like your understanding of the options is correct though not that promising. The only other option would be to propose an alternative compliance path through a project specific LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org..
I think Ben is exactly right - when all the existing options are exhausted, the onus is on the project to propose an alternative compliance path that meets the intent of the credit. That may be rather difficult, or it may require meeting a standard of performance that feels particularly challenging (for example, comparing your facility to similar facilities outside of Egypt, if you can find data for those). But its up to you to formulate a reasonable alternative and convince GBCI that your approach is valid - the project-specific LEED interpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. is the right way to do this. Good luck with it.
Principal, LEED Consulting
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Commissioning or auditing can improve identify a range of energy-saving measures.
Implementing energy-saving measures a directly helps achieve the desired Energy Star rating.
Ongoing commissioning can lead to added energy savings over the long term, improving the Energy Star rating further.
Use of a BAS can inform operational changes contributing to energy goals.
Accurate energy-use data supports assessment and implementation of energy-efficiency measures.
If increasing ventilation levels, consider the likely increased energy consumption.
Efforts to improve energy efficiency can affect occupant comfort, in good and bad ways. Monitor comfort along with any energy efficiency measures.
Use the Energy Star Portfolio Manager statement of energy performance to help achieve EAc6.
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.