With the more stringent requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 as the baseline, additional creativity and effort is required to achieve higher levels of energy efficiency under this credit.
Teams will need to take a concerted approach from the early design phase forward to optimize the building massing and envelope, reduce heating and cooling loads, and maximize daylighting opportunities, in order to make the selection and integration of high-efficiency lighting and HVAC systems practical and effective. However, the effort is worth it as this credit can provide long-term operational cost savings, as well as a significant number of points toward your LEED certification goals.
Yes, you may still factor in the estimated energy production of onsite renewable energy systems as a credit against the energy costs of the proposed building.
To achieve increasing levels of energy performance beyond the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental and economic harms associated with excessive energy use.
Establish an energy performance target no later than the schematic design phase. The target must be established as kBtu per square foot-year (kW per square meter-year) of 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.
Choose one of the options below.
Analyze efficiency measures during the design process and account for the results in design decision making. Use energy simulation of efficiency opportunities, past energy simulation analyses for similar buildings, or published data (e.g., Advanced Energy Design Guides) from analyses for similar buildings.
Analyze efficiency measures, focusing on load reduction and HVAC-related strategies (passive measures are acceptable) appropriate for the facility. Project potential energy savings and holistic project cost implications related to all affected systems.
Project teams pursuing the Integrative Process credit must complete the basic energy analysis for that credit before conducting the energy simulation.
Follow the criteria in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance to demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline. Points are awarded according to Table 1.
To be eligible for Option 2, projects must use Option 2 in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance.
Implement and document compliance with the applicable recommendations and standards in Chapter 4, Design Strategies and Recommendations by 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., for the appropriate ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide and climate zone. For projects outside the U.S., consult ASHRAE/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendixes B and D, to determine the appropriate climate zone.
ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small to Medium Office Buildings
ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide for Medium to Large Box Retail Buildings
ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide for K–12 School Buildings
ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide for Large Hospitals
The following pilot alternative compliance path is available for this credit. See the pilot credit library for more information.
EApc95: Alternative Energy Performance Metric ACP
Documentation for this credit can be part of a Design Phase submittal.
Hi - Our solar PV system is adding two points to our "optimize energy performance" category due to the cost offset. Can I also claim additional points for renewable energy production based on the % of total energy(costs) my solar array is producing? In our case, this will total 3 points in the renewable energy production category, plus 1 additional regional priority point. I want to be sure I can claim all 6 of these points and that this not considered double-dipping by LEED. Thank you.
You can, and are encouraged to, claim credit under both.
We are looking to certify a new building on a higher-ed campus that will be sharing HVAC systems with an existing building. The existing building will likely not pursue certifications. The HVAC system will primarily be new, serving both buildings. How do we navigate energy credits? Is this a question about "reasonable LEED boundaries" instead?
It is a boundary question. See the v4 MPRs - http://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction/v4/minimum-program-require...
I am working on a sanitation maintenance garage, which is a major renovation project, and I plugged the necessary info at EPA Target Finder. The project property type I selected was Public Service: Others. I input the energy use data for this property from last year, both electric and natural gas, to have a comparison value with the Design Target that Target Finder will generate. The performance results were ugly. The current EUI has dramatically higher than the 75% median and the Design Target. Even with the HVAC, lighting, and plumbing upgrades we're going to design, i doubt we will meet the Design Target. Has anyone else had an issue like this for this credit since Target Finder performance results are required? Is there a way to bypass Target Finder results and just go by the energy use reduction % between the baseline and proposed energy model for this project?
I don't think you have to provide the Target Finder score for v4 projects.
In v2009 you can't get a Target Finder score for that property type (see link below) so you don't have to complete that part of the form.
We are doing certification for a beverage factory. The factory requires chilled water for process load that is served by 2*1080 kW Evaporatively cooled Screw chillers. The same serves for air conditioning also. My baseline system is system 6 - PVAV. Modeling baseline case for process is confusing since the process load requires 1200 kW of cooling.
1.If two chillers run to meet the process load alone with VAV system serving for HVAC then my energy consumption in baseline goes very high resulting in unreasonable energy savings.
2.We have modeled to one chiller of 1200 kW to meet the process load and system 6 to cater HVAC load in the baseline. Is this good enough.
If not how do I model or kindly suggest related interpretations or sources for the same.
Thanks in advance.
Your approach sounds reasonable. You should able to justify the amount of cooling needed for process and the amount needed for space conditioning and be able to demonstrate that the process load has been modeled identically. The modeling output should show the energy use associated with each as a separate line item.
Hi, Is there any precedent for being able to exclude fuel refinery energy from an energy model. Usually refinery of diesel would be done offsite for a typical fleet facility (therefore no energy associated with refining or using of fuel) but in our case it is being done onsite using compressors which consume a lot of energy.
All energy use within the LEED project boundary must be accounted for. This is a process load that is modeled identically in both models. Several project types have high process loads, like manufacturers, and depending on what percentage of the energy use is associated with process they need to find some savings in the process.
Thanks Marcus, this is what I thought. We have some efficiencies in the process so I think we can justify some exceptional savings.
Does anyone know if this applies to new construction only or do renovated spaces need to be upgraded to meet this? My project is 17% new/83% renovation. Since there are no calculations, the sample form doesn't ask where the prescriptive requirements are applied. If that is the case, we could follow the prescriptive path on new construction, and ignore existing walls and roof that we are not touching. That would allow the project to get up to 5 points, correct?
It applies to the renovated space as well. Does not sound like your project would be eligible to use this option.
I have a project that is looking to install a significant amount of solar PV on the roof of their commercial office project via a third party PPA arrangement. In the analysis we've run, the annual energy cost from the utility will be reduced by 35% from the LEED baseline case without the solar, and 70% with the solar. However, because the project will also have to pay the PPA provider for the 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. coming from the solar array, the total annual energy cost will actually go up, so that it's about 33% reduced from the LEED baseline case (due to the fact that the PPA rate is slightly higher than the utility rate).
So my question is: do projects have to account for the annual energy cost from the solar PPA? Or just from the utility. I would hope LEED would recognize the PPA as an innovative way to get more renewable energy out in the world, but I want to make sure.
Josh, my feeling is that LEED would recognize just the cost from the utility, but it seems like this would be one to confirm with GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). to be sure. I'd email them your question—and post back here what you learn.
I agree with Tristan, only the utility costs will need to be reported. Due to regulations, PPAs are specifically not acting as utilities, they are not regulated. This is not a utility cost, it is a financing option to for installing renewable energy that is paid on a 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. basis. Remember when you ask GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)., state your case and the expected result (ie it is best NOT to ask open ended questions in this case)!
This is what you can do within the rules.The basic rules are that you use a reasonable rate for your area and that it is identical in both models. The specific rate used can be from a variety of sources.
This is what you should do. In the name of accuracy you should usually use the actual rate and the actual cost. I agree that one should not be penalized for signing a PPA but I am not sure you are being penalized in LEED.
You still get the count the solar toward this credit. So with the solar you are at 70% which will drop slightly with the higher rate. It won't drop farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). enough to get under the highest threshold so with either rate you get all the points. Which makes this a bit of a moot point relative to LEED points.
Marcus, I am now confused. Are you saying that Josh has to report the PPA payments as a utility cost? A PPA is not a utility. In my mind, he needs to use the true cost of the utility rate for baseline and design, but under design, only has to report that energy actually consumed by the building, not payments made to the PPA. Can you please clarify your response?
There may be a difference between what he has to do and what he should do. The rules (what he has to do) allow for him to use a variety of reasonable sources to determine the rate he uses. He does not have to report the PPA payments.
One could argue both sides of this PPA cost. It could be viewed as you indicate (a financing mechanism) or it could be viewed as a solar premium (paying more for a cleaner energy source).
I might ask the owner which way they see it. Is this an energy production cost or not? How is his accountant coding it? A utility cost or a financing cost? If a utility cost then the right thing to do in my opinion would be to include it in the cost of the electricity.
I'm not sure I follow you above regarding using rates for the solar. In my case, the actual rate ($/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.) of the solar under the PPA agreement is higher than the actual rate from the utility. Although the escalation rate for the solar is less than the anticipated escalation rate from the utility. So in year 1, the annual energy bill, including solar + utility will be higher than if it was just from the utility with no solar. But in year 20, it will be less. The 70% reduction is only when I don't count the cost of the solar, and it's only for year 1. Either way, I don't understand what you mean when you say: " So with the solar you are at 70% which will drop slightly with the higher rate." Can you explain.
For what it's worth, the client sees this as a financing vehicle to be a relatively cash neutral way of bringing a significant amount of solar into use that wouldn't happen otherwise. In my opinion, solar should be exempt in cases like this given that it's an onsite installation (as opposed to a premium one would pay on their utility bill for green power).
I am assuming from your post that the 70% is the savings relative to an Appendix G baseline when you include the solar production as a renewable energy source. You indicated that the savings without solar dropped from 35% to 33% with the higher rate so I am just assuming that the same would happen when you subtract the solar (percent savings would also drop a bit) but maybe that would not be the case as the lower the rate the higher the saving (all things being equal). My point was that whether you got 65% savings or 75% savings you will get the same number of LEED points.
As you know the escalation does not matter since the values are just a one year snapshot.
Maybe I am not understanding what you are asking - I appear to be confusing both you and Scott!
If viewed strictly as a financing method then of course you would not count the PPA cost anymore than you would count the lease cost or the cost of the system in general. The cost of the fuel is $0. So use the utility rate only in the model and the proposed virtual rate for the solar production.
This all assumes that the RECs have not been sold. If they have you either can't count it at all or have to replace them.
Now the RECA Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is a certificate representing proof that a given unit of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source such as solar or wind. These certificates are able to be sold, traded, or bartered as environmental commodities, where an electricity consumer can buy the renewable energy attributes of electricty to support renewable energy, even if they are consuming generic grid-supplied electricity that may be supplied by nonrenewable sources. is not something I thought about. That is a good point, and one that frankly I do not understand well. I know about buying RECs, but when part of a PPA, I do not understand them.
As to the original confusion, I thought Josh was saying that if he uses $0 for the solar cost, then he gets to the 70% under baseline, but if he includes the PPA cost as a utility, then the savings drop to 33% under baseline. Hence my focus on if PPA is a utility or not.
Can you explain more about the RECs and how that part affects how you make this calculation. Frankly, I am hoping to see more PPAs on projects, so this is a key point I want to understand better.
If the RECs are sold you simply cannot count the PV toward EAc2 or EAp2/EAc1. Depending on the state market the RECs are often sold to help finance the system. If you sell the RECs you can replace them and then count the PV toward the credits. There is a 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. that includes all the requirements.
I personally do not agree with this approach but that is the way LEED works. There was a thread in one of the other LEED User forums recently on this subject.
You're understanding is correct. Thanks for helping to clarify.
Regarding RECs, I understand the logic about not wanting to double count the renewable energy attribute that the utility is using to meet their renewable portfolio standard (RPS), but I think the effect of making a project buy back an equivalent amount of RECs for some period of time just makes it harder and less desirable for projects to go down the PPA road in the first place, and leaves them feeling like they have to "buy the LEED points" back in the form of the RECs. I think the positive impact of having distributed generation solar that can be integrated into building projects outweighs the concern over double counting of RECs (which is a dubious and complicated topic anyway). If we had a closed market for RECs (e.g. just for CO, where this project is located), I'd understand the potential concern for REC leakage, but when we go to procure RECs from anywhere in the country, it feels like we're letter a concern over a paper trail trump the obvious benefit of getting more solar out there.
OK, sorry for my confusion.
I agree with you about the RECs. Hard enough to get a solar system financed without LEED putting up unnecessary barriers. Get the LAC/EA TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. working on that!
We are in the conceptual design phase of a project consisting of renovations to an existing building and a significant addition. The current area breakdown is below:
No Change: 19,237 ft2
Light Reno: 11,713 ft2
Heavy Reno: 11,616 ft2
New Construction: 25,525 ft2
Total: 68,091 ft2
I am trying estimate potential achievable points for the EA Optimize Energy Performance Credit under LEEDv4. Table 1 of this credit shows achievable points will differ for the same % improvement number depending on whether the project is classified as new construction or major renovation. Using the areas listed above and applying the "Choosing Between Rating Systems" section (which I'm not sure is intended for this application) puts us at 60% existing/renovation vs. 40% new. Does that mean we are a major renovation?
Separately, in EA Min Energy Performance Prereq., I see Equation 1 which pro-rates existing and new areas to quantify a single % improvement number for the whole project. But my question is still should this percent improvement number be compared to the major renovation or new construction column of Table 1 in the Optimize credit? Or to an area-weighted average between the two columns?
You will end up with a weighted average between the two.
In our company, we have introduced LEED as mandatory for all new construction projects. but unfortunately LEED is not really made for Factories, where you have quite a high process loads compared building energy loads, due to this we have created our own Green Factory standard (SFR) for all our processes and its services.
Now I have a question, related to the energy simulation and its process loads.
In ver 2009 and below, we could use default process load of 25% when we were comparing against baseline. This was done without any issues in all our LEED certifications and also accepted by GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). auditors.
In the new ver 4, this sentence has been removed and I would like to understand how this will be assessed, according to the new version.
Do we need to implement the total process load energy into the energy simulation or can we still use the default process energy load ?
Unfortunately this perception seems to persist as the credit language is confusing. There has never been a 25% default process load. You have always been required to model all of the energy use in all facilities. If your previous reviews used a 25% default and it was not challenged by the reviewers it was a mistake and should not have been allowed.
The reason the language was removed from v4 was to end the confusion it created. Under v4 and in all previous version of LEED/ASHARE 90.1 you are required to model all process loads as accurately as you can. Table G3.1-1 and the LEED credit language (model all of the energy use within and associated with the project) requires you to do so.
Marcus, I am getting involved in a project that has a significant amount of process load associated with refrigeration equipment (coolers and freezers), and the design team has some pretty good ideas on how to reduce the energy use of these systems. So, they are going to want to show a difference between the baseline and design models.
How would you suggest we document/determine an appropriate baseline? We would like to deal with this early in the project instead of review, and intend to have a conference call, but would appreciate any advice you might have.
First places I would check are LEED Retail and ASHRAE 90.1-2013. There are some baseline criteria established in both for commercial refrigeration.
The LEED Retail criteria is already an acceptable baseline. Anything else as a baseline would require some additional justification that it is standard industry practice in that location. If there are utility rebates in your area you can sometimes use their baseline as a justification. Basically you just need to convince the reviewer that you have a reasonable baseline.
Thanks to the help of the LEED User Group: Industrial Facilities and the 900+ manufacturing projects that have been successful with the LEED certification process to date, USGBC has been able to work very closely with this sector and owners to make LEED more applicable to their building design and operational practices. Some examples include the Alternative Compliance Paths that address energy modeling with regulated and unregulated loads, benchmarking for unique space types, and renewable energy systems specific to industrial facilities. See LEED Interpretations ID#10291, #10220, and #10397 respectively in the LEED Addenda Database for additional details. http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations
Will the LEED CS 2009 Alternative Compliance Path continue through to LEED version 4? There is a 2009 calculator that CS projects use to determine revised points thresholds based on Owner-Influenced energy percentage (dated August 30, 2011). Will there be an updated calculator for LEED version 4?
I would think so as the primary concept remains the same. The thresholds have changed so a new one needs to be prepared. I have not yet seen a new one posted on USGBC's web site. I would contact USGBC/GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). directly and ask. The best way is foten through the Contact link on gbci.org.
Hi there, any updates on this?
I think I heard that it was discontinued for v4 projects but I am not sure where or when I heard it or if it is in writing anywhere.
In version 4, you'll notice that CS has a different point scale than NC. The logic for this is to account for the limited influence the landlord has in a CS project. So I do not expect an ACP will be created for v4.
I got an official answer from USGBC saying it is not applicable to CS v4.
How is it possible to take advantage of energy use reduction due to DRDemand response: a change in electricity use by demand-side resources from their normal consumption patterns in response to changes in the price of electricity or to incentive payments designed to induce lower electricity use at times of high wholesale market prices or when system reliability is jeopardized. systems in EAp2-EAc1 energy modeling? Is there any reference guide or document as those for the "key cards" for example? Thank you
The DRDemand response: a change in electricity use by demand-side resources from their normal consumption patterns in response to changes in the price of electricity or to incentive payments designed to induce lower electricity use at times of high wholesale market prices or when system reliability is jeopardized. credit was specifically added to v4 because it is not fully rewarded within the Energy Performance prerequisite and credit. You must use the same utility rate for each model. So you will get some partial savings for strategies like peak shifting. I am not aware of any document that spells out a modeling protocol to demonstrate these savings.
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 2017 – BuildingGreen, Inc.