EBOM-2009 EAc1: Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance 1-18 points

Many projects in Europe are connected to highly efficient district energy systems. However, the EAp2/EAc1 Option 2 guidance provided in the "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction" (DESv2) document is not well-suited for the complex interconnected district energy systems with multiple fuel sources that are common in Europe. Many European countries already make use of the Primary Energy Factor (PEF) as a means of evaluating district energy performance and building energy performance. Is there an alternative compliance path available to document EAp2/EAc1 credit for the district energy system using the Primary Energy Factor in lieu of the DESv2 Option 2 compliance path?

Many multifamily buildings are not master-metered for water, electric, and/or gas. It is often prohibitively difficult to get utility data from utility companies, and many residential occupants are uncomfortable providing their utility data. This poses a challenge to meeting the requirement to collect 100% of utility data for a building. Will USGBC allow sampling of utilities from the residential units?

This Project involves the construction of a Testing Facility for High Volume Low Velocity circulation fans. The building consists of a 1940 S.F. General Office Area, a 1940 S.F. Shop Area, and a 40550 S.F. Testing Area with a 50\' joist height. The Testing Area will have in it at most (4) four High Volume Low Velocity circulation fans operating at the same time. The building will have no transient occupants, and a maximum of (6) six employees that will occupy the entire building during normal business hours. This CIR is in reference to the Testing Area. 1. Testing Area: As part of the USGBC New Construction & Major Renovation Version 2.2, the building is required to meet ASHRAE 90.1 2004 (Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings), and ASHRAE 62.1 2004 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality). In accordance with ASHRAE 90.1 2004 the Testing Area is given a baseline LPD (Lighting Power Density) of 1.4 W/SF as is standard for a Laboratory. The only reference in ASHRAE 62.1 2004 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality) with regard to a Laboratory is listed in Table 6-1 under "Educational Facilities" - "Science Laboratories". The classification that most closely matches the actual use of the space in the Testing Area for ventilation purposes is a Warehouse, since the population density is low (6760 SF/Person), and the area will never contain "Laboratory" chemicals, "Laboratory" exhaust hoods, Make-Up air or a population density on par with an Educational Facility Science Laboratory. The Ventilation and Exhaust requirements for a Science Lab are (3) three times that of a Warehouse, and subsequently (3) three times the energy cost. Since the "actual" usage of the Testing Area fits the lighting energy requirements of a Laboratory (ASHRAE 90.1 2004) and the ventilation requirements of a Warehouse (ASHRAE 62.1 2004), can the design team consider this space as such for calculations, or does the requirement to stay consistent with room classifications supersede actual building function?

Our project is a 65,000 SF injection molding manufacturing facility and office near Detroit, MI. The project consists of 10,000 SF of air-conditioned office space, and 55,000 SF of air-conditioned manufacturing space, which includes injection molding equipment, as well as occupied assembly areas. The energy required for the manufacturing process exceeds 85% of the facility\'s total energy load. To achieve the 14% minimum energy savings, process load energy savings must be taken into account. As a result of the high energy loads associated with the manufacturing process, as well as the energy not falling under ASHRAE 90.1-2004, an exceptional calculation method must be established for the manufacturing area. Both the office area and the manufacturing area are conditioned. Space cooling in these areas will be achieved through constant volume rooftop units, and will be modeled through a standard energy modeling software like Trane Trace 700. The manufacturing process includes injection molding machinery which is cooled through a chiller & cooling tower assembly. The load on the chiller and cooling tower will not fluctuate (except for operational and non-operational hours, which will be achieved through a schedule). The chiller and cooling tower performance will be run in a separate energy model using this constant load to determine the overall energy used based on the outdoor air conditions throughout the year. The Chiller and cooling tower energy used will then be input into the original model as annual process energy. The Chiller and Cooling Tower efficiencies for the baseline will be based off ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum standards. The injection molding equipment proposed is state-of-the-art and very energy efficient compared to the standard injection molding machinery that is the industry standard. Using the client-provided operational times for the equipment we will be able to estimate the total energy used by this injection molding equipment, as well as the total energy that would be used by industry standard equipment. This will be used to determine the annual energy for both the baseline and the proposed design. We will then input these amounts into the original energy model as annual process energy. For comparison purposes, we also have a similar plant by the same client that uses the industry standard machines. By comparing the amount of equipment and square footage of this plant, we can achieve a very accurate idea of how much energy the new plant is saving. All calculations showing how the machinery energy was determined, and results of planned field monitoring, will be explained in an excel spreadsheet. Equipment descriptions and energy loads will be shown for all machines that will be used, as well as for comparable industry standard machines. Once the process equipment, both baseline and proposed, have been input into the overall energy model as process loads, the standard reports issued from the model will be used for the LEED Reports. In addition, we will provide the sub-energy models of the process equipment that is weather-based. Please confirm that our assumptions and method of calculating the process energy load for both the base and proposed design cases are acceptable for EAc1.

For an office campus of eight buildings, where metering occurs only at the campus level, is it acceptable to either enter all buildings as one into portfolio manager, or to use the EAc1 Option B calculator?

Many projects in Europe are connected to highly efficient district energy systems. However, the EAp2/EAc1 Option 2 guidance provided in the "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction" (DESv2) document is not well-suited for the complex interconnected district energy systems with multiple fuel sources that are common in Europe. Many European countries already make use of the Primary Energy Factor (PEF) as a means of evaluating district energy performance and building energy performance. Is there an alternative compliance path available to document EAp2/EAc1 credit for the district energy system using the Primary Energy Factor in lieu of the DESv2 Option 2 compliance path?

Recently, USGBC approved a CIR regarding savings from key cards in hotel rooms (5/14/07 - see attached). We are requesting that under LEED-NC savings from submetering of multi-family buildings be accepted as an exceptional calculation method. There are no code requirements for submetering of apartment or condominiums in multi-family buildings. Submetering of utilities for individual tenants or owners in multi-family buildings is an added construction cost, but significant energy savings result. Studies have shown that a minimum of 10% energy savings are achieved once individual metering is implemented. Research done by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA: http://www.nyserda.org/publications/SubmeterManual.pdf) estimates that installing sub-meters in a master-metered building can reduce building-wide electricity consumption by 10-26%. In Ontario, Canada, non-electrically heated submetered apartments have shown a 16-22% reduction in electricity consumption while electrically heated apartments with submetering showed a reduction in consumption of 30% (http://www.frpo.org/Document/Topics&Issues/UtilitiesEnergy/Options%20to%...). Based on these studies and the fact that submetering is not required by the energy codes, we request that USGBC allow an exceptional calculation method to account for the savings from submetering. We are proposing that 10% cost savings of all submetered end uses be allowed by the calculation method. So, if a living unit is submetered for electricity and gas, the project can assume 10% cost savings for each of these fuel sources based on the energy use within the unit. Energy use in common areas of the building would be excluded from the calculation. Is this acceptable? Related CIR\'s 4/12/2007 - Credit Interpretation Request Per ASHRAE 90.1-1999 and 2004 mandatory requirements, hotel guestrooms must include a master control device at the main room entry that controls all permanently installed luminaires and switched receptacles. We are considering automating this lighting control with the use of a key card-activated master switch. The control would turn off all permanently installed and switched receptacle lighting after the guestroom is unoccupied for more than 30 minutes. The controls may also be configured to allow the interior window shades to be closed automatically when the guestroom is unoccupied. Monitored data for hotel lighting usage patterns is provided in a 1999 Research study by Erik Page and Michael Siminovitch entitled "Lighting Energy Savings in Hotel Guestrooms." This study indicates an average daily usage of nearly 8 hours for the bathroom light, 2 hours for the desk table lamp, 5 hours for the bedside lamp, and 3 hours for a floor lamp. The study also showed that the high use fixtures (the bathroom fixture and bed lamp) did not experience a significant drop during typically unoccupied periods. Instead, these lights were 20% - 25% on during these periods; and the lighting energy consumed during these periods accounted for about 60% of the total guestroom lighting energy consumption. Another study for ACEEE entitled the "Emerging Energy-Savings Technologies and Practices for the Building Sector as of 2004" projects an energy savings for key card lighting controls of 30%. Based on the information provided in these two studies, it seems reasonable to credit hotel guestroom lighting fixtures with a 30% energy savings for automated control based on room occupancy. We propose to model the energy savings achieved through automated control of lighting and interior window shades as an exceptional calculation measure. The lighting savings would be calculated by adjusting the proposed case lighting schedules for all permanently installed and switched receptacle fixtures to 50% lower than the budget case for the percentage of guestrooms modeled as unoccupied. Lighting during all occupied periods will be modeled identically to the budget case. The guestroom lighting energy savings achieved through this measure for the affected lighting fixtures would be 30%. Automated control of the blinds is intended to limit solar heat gains, since the building is in a hot dry climate. The blinds will be modeled identically during the occupied periods as 50% open during daylit hours, and 25% open during evening hours. During unoccupied periods, the shades will be modeled as 25% open. As with all exceptional calculation measures, the savings for this automated control measure will include a narrative documenting the lighting and interior shading schedules and assumptions, and the calculation methodology, and will include a separate line item on the ECB report documenting the savings achieved from this measure. We would like confirmation whether the proposed modeling methodology is acceptable, or direction regarding any modifications that would need to be made to the proposed modeling methodology in order to comply with LEED ECB modeling requirements. 5/14/2007 - Ruling The applicant is requesting confirmation on the proposed strategy for two exceptional calculations. Based on the description of the lighting assumptions, the proposed approach is acceptable. In the LEED submittal please include a narrative documenting the lighting schedules and assumptions and the calculation methodology. Also include a separate line item on the ECB report documenting the savings achieved from this measure. Please provide enough detail in the documentation to allow the review team to ascertain the amount of credit claimed. Based on the description of the automated blinds, the assumptions concerning blind control are insufficient to model the proposed building.

This project is located on a multi-building medical campus in Illinois. Typical of a campus, it is composed of numerous existing buildings, parking structures, surface lots and circulation streets. The campus is proposing to build, as separately bid projects, a new inpatient building, some additions to existing buildings, and a new parking structure. Our intent is to pursue LEED Certification for the new inpatient building, a new multi-level parking structure and new portions of site work on the campus, but not the additions to existing buildings. One of the buildings included in the project boundary is an open parking structure. The parking structure includes an enclosed combination stair/elevator lobby. We intend to heat this stair/elevator lobby as well as ventilate the space. A telecommunication closet along with an electrical room will be heated and conditioned as well. The parking garage is not required to be ventilated since it is classified as an open parking structure. The parking garage and stair/elevator lobby will have lighting as required. LEED for Multiple Buildings allows a weighted aggregate for the group of buildings based on their conditioned square footage or aggregate PRM calculation. We would like to confirm only the areas being heated and conditioned are required to be included in the square footage calculation for this particular structure when being considered into the overall aggregate or overall PRM. The lighting square footage will take into account the overall square footage being covered by lighting. Please confirm that we are using the correct calculation methodology for this point.

For a building which recently installed a separate meter for a parking deck, is it acceptable to submit using only 6 months of actual metering data and extrapolate the rest, as consumption varies only minimally from month to month?