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

We are planning to submit our office building for LEED O&M certification. Our 148,331 square foot building has a 531 square foot computer data center. The data center has a high energy use intensity, using approximately 154 watts per square foot, based on sub metering data collected over the last 12 months. The Energy Star Portfolio Manager program does not adequately account for the data center power use. Excluding the data center significantly reduces our Energy Star score across the building since the data center power density is not accurately represented by Portfolio Manager. The data center has a dedicated sub-meter to accurately capture and monitor the energy used. We would like to pull the data center out of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager scoring system. Energy Star will allow us to pull out the square footage of the data center and the total energy used by the data center for Energy Star Certification if we have 12 months of actual metering data and the data center area accounts for less than 10% of the total area. This facility meets both criteria. Please confirm that this approach to demonstrating compliance with LEED O&M EA Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1 is acceptable to USGBC.

The question is based on ASHRAE 90.1 requirements for Performance Rating Method for building modeling. This building has very high internal loads with the baseline process load at 49% of the total building energy based on actual equipment. The internal load is primarily computer desktops and monitors. Both baseline and proposed building energy usage numbers are based on a calculation worksheet as published by the US dept of Energy for computer desktops and monitors. The Energy Star usage value increases the proposed energy building performance reduction by 10-15%. This lower value for the process load is still above the 25% requirement for the total building energy amount as outlined in the LEED requirements of this point. The equipment in the new building that the owner will provide will consist of Energy Star computer desktops and monitors. We request clarification that we can run the baseline with standard energy load based on LBNL 2007 standards and proposed building with Energy Star energy loads.

Our project is a new 174,786 square foot refrigerated warehouse with interior offices. The office area will comprise approximately 8,800 square feet of the total building. The refrigerated portion of the building will be unoccupied and fully automated, maintained at -10 degrees Fahrenheit, and will include a receiving dock area maintained at +40 degrees Fahrenheit. For the baseline and actual energy performance calculations utilized for EAc1, we are proposing to calculate the office area and equipment of the building only, and exclude the refrigerated portion of the building. To clarify, the portion of the building under consideration includes the following elements: 1. Freezer Storage Area 2. Receiving Area (cold dock) a. Rail Access Vestibule b. Maintenance Room c. Storage Room d. Refrigerator Equipment Mezzanine e. Fire Pump/Sprinkler Room f. Electrical Room ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Section 2.3 states that the standard does not apply to "(c) equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes." The ASHRAE 90.1-2004 User\'s manual reinforces the point "for example, the Standard does not apply to refrigerated warehouses that are cooled to maintain the quality of the goods stored in the warehouse." We wish to clarify that for a refrigerated warehouse, the baseline and actual energy calculations for prerequisite EAp2 and credit EAc1 will be based on the office portion of the building only. All energy used for refrigeration in the previously described areas will be excluded from the calculations nor contribute to the required 25% process load. Note however, the envelope portion of the refrigerated warehouse will remain in full compliance with ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section 5. Please confirm that this approach is correct.

We are writing this CIR to propose an alternate method for calculating the energy efficiency due to the limitations we see in the new LEED-EBOM for Semiconductors. We are considering going with Option C2 because of following reasons but still encountering unclear direction in the RG for calculating the historical baseline. Offline calculator for Option C2 is not available in LEED-EBOM RG & LEED-Online template. The Option C2 instruction is in a way similar to the old LEED-EBv2 instruction. As such, we are proposing to use the methods & calculations defined in the LEED-EBv2 in calculating our energy efficiency based on kwhr/space actual utilization (excluding idle spaces). Reasons: Our project covers a semiconductor assembly & test facilities, it caters for various & multiple type\'s semiconductor products that changes from time-to-time. Our operation started in 2001 & the total area of the building was 301ksf. Manufacturing & office spaces represent 60% & 26% of the total area respectively. The manufacturing floor spaces were not occupied completely when its operation started, over the years the manufacturing space had gradually been occupied & made some minor space conversion to cater for the growing demand. The space utilization varies dynamically as the products converts from one technology to another - that normally last for a couple of months; manufacturing equipment layout will require changes that will induce temporary idle spaces. We performed manufacturing tool compaction activities to allow producing more products on the same floor space with the intention to prevent building more structures & facilities. It was done without sacrificing the air ventilation & ergonomic concerns of the employees working in the production area. Despite the efforts done to reduce consumption & improve plant efficiency, the plant faces problems in meeting EAc1 of the LEED-EBOM RG. Under Option A, obtaining an Energy Star Rating in the Portfolio Manager is not possible for semiconductor plants for the reasons that said "building type" is not available in the EPA system. Also, our semiconductor manufacturing floor areas categorized as "others space type" in the Portfolio Manager exceeded the allowable percentage space limit in the system, thus making it un-ratable. In Option B, the RG provides two options either by demonstrating 19% efficiency as benchmarked against a national median or use USGBC LEED-Online supplementary offline calculator. In comparing our buildings energy usage with other buildings of similar space types & similar climate, we\'re experiencing problems in conducting the benchmarking due to the fact that we don\'t have similar processes & products even within our company; most of our other plants are not located within the same geographical region. Our manufacturing plants are not alike when it comes to production mix, each sites produces different products. Today, there is no energy benchmark available for semiconductor facilities. Under the Eligibility tab of the offline calculator Question C-4, it states that "If the Energy Star rating was unavailable because of building characteristics or activities is over 10% of the project building\'s space, as entered on Portfolio Manager, classified as "data center", "Service", or other unclassified - then it directs us to use the general option C instructions in the RG & don\'t use the offline calculator. Our manufacturing space accounts to 60% of the total area & prohibits us from using the offline calculator. Option C1 requires applicants to obtain its weather-normalized EUI in the Portfolio Manager and compare it to a national EUI average source in CBECS. Similar to EPA, CBECS doesn\'t have any modeled data that represents semiconductor EUI, as such comparative benchmarking is again not possible.

This project is a remodeling of an existing office building that will include the addition of a Data Center. The Data Center will make extensive use of server virtualization to save energy, space and money. Server virtualization is the technique of replacing multiple servers with one server running multiple "virtual servers" on one larger, high performance server. In their existing Data Center, our client runs an average of 8 virtual servers on each high-performance server. Although the high performance server uses more energy than any one of the low to medium performance servers that it replaces, this results in a net energy savings of between 60-75%. Our question is: Under EAc1, Option 1, may we use the Exceptional Calculation Method to model the energy savings accountable to server virtualization?

This project is to renovate 300,000 square feet of an old factory and convert to a distribution center. The owner strongly desires to be sustainable and will use many sustainable features whether or not LEED certification is sought. We will use high efficiency lighting and high efficiency infrared heaters, but no cooling. If we use the ASHRAE appendix G, we have to model the baseline cooling system for the baseline and the proposed. Since the cooling energy will be much larger than the heating energy the 14% reduction from ASHRAE will not be possible. This force the project to be penalized for energy never actually used. In this case we feel that the ASHRAE standard does not rationally apply. This project will reuse a large facility and incorporate significant sustainability features and we would not like to be excluded because the ASHRAE standard does not apply logically to this facility. Is there any alternative method for compliance in this situation?

This project is a major renovation to the existing building envelope (new skin added, new windows) and to the common area part of a tenant occupied office building. We have received approval from the USGBC to use LEED for New Construction. The core space lighting (elevator areas, lobby, restrooms, conference rooms), ductwork and finishes will be modified but the central air handling system and air cooled chiller and the tenant spaces will be only minimally altered. The question has been posed by the building manager regarding if they need to replace the tenant lighting in the space as the tenant space is not in the scope of work for the project. According to the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 users guide, if you were to replace more than 50% of the lighting fixtures in the building, you would have to meet ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lighting requirements, which, based on our analysis of what the base case and current design is in terms of lighting power density for this office building, means the building managers would have to replace all the tenant lighting with T8, 25 Watt lamps. However, if we replace less than 50% of the lighting in the building, we are not dictated by ASHRAE 90.1-2004, unless the renovation increases installed lighting power. However, according to the LEED Reference Guide for the prerequisite EAp2, lighting applies to all lighting installed on the building site including interior and exterior lighting. If the total installed interior lighting power is lower than the interior lighting power allowance calculated using ASHRAE 90.1-2004, the project complies. These two statements contradict each other if there is less than 50% of the lighting replaced, but the LEED Reference Guide does refer to the ASHRAE 90.1 users manual as a reference. Please advise on what to assume for the tenant space lighting power density in both the base case ASHRAE 90.1-2004 compliant building and the design case if less than 50% of the lighting is replaced.

Our project consists of multifamily rental units. We are performing the energy model using TRACE 700, a program that meets ASHRAE Standard 140-2004: Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load Tests. TRACE 700 does not have the capability of modeling domestic hot water energy usage. In order to account for domestic hot water energy usage we are proposing to use the Department of Energy sponsored Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory calculation methodology. The spreadsheet can be found at www.doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp?docid=2249. This spreadsheet estimates the energy consumption of water heaters based on power source, energy factor, and recovery efficiency. In addition, the spreadsheet estimates the energy reductions associated with hot water consumption of Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers. According to the CIR ruling dated 4/25/2007, credit cannot be taken for low flow fixtures accounted for in WE credit 3. However, clothes washers and dishwashers are not accounted for in LEED NC v2.2 WE credit 3. An exceptional calculation in accordance with Appendix G will be provided to demonstrate energy savings for the Energy Star appliance itself. In addition, we believe the reduction in the amount of hot water required by Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers should be accounted for in the water heating calculation. The basis for these calculations found at http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/aboutwhm.html will be uploaded as supporting documentation. 1. Can we use the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory spreadsheet since TRACE 700 does not model energy consumption for domestic water heaters? 2. Can the energy savings for the reduced hot water consumption for Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers be accounted for in the domestic hot water energy consumption calculation?

Our project is a newly constructed, 825,751 square foot automotive manufacturing facility in the midwest. The ventilation requirements for our facility, as set forth by ASHRAE 62.1, Section 2.2 states: "Additional requirements for laboratory, industrial, and other spaces may be dictated by workplace and other standards,.". Industrial facilities in this location fall under the requirements of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA). Per MIOSHA\'s, health standards ("Part 520. Ventilation Control"), R325.52007 Exhaust ventilation systems, Rule 7 states : "The minimum rate of exhaust ventilation for places of manufacturing, processing, assembling, maintenance and repair, or storage of material shall be 1 cubic foot of air per minute per square foot of floor area. This amount of exhaust ventilation may be provided by local exhaust, general exhaust, or both. The director may permit a variance if contaminant control is accomplished at a lesser rate of ventilation." MIOSHA has stated that an allowable level of contaminant control for dust/mist particulate would be 5 mg/cubic meter. In an attempt to save ongoing heating, cooling and ventilation expenses, the Owner chose to design the new facility in an innovative manner that could attain contaminant control at a much lesser ventilation rate than the default 1 CFM/SF that is set forth by MIOSHA and used by other automotive manufacturing facilities. The manufacturing facility has set a target of 0.5 mg/cubic meter, significantly lower than the MIOSHA required level of contaminant control. In order to reach this high level of contaminant control, they implemented the following innovative approaches: 1 - For the machining and grinding processes, enclosures were constructed and oil mist/dust collection systems were implemented with HEPA filtration. 2 - For the parts washers, enclosures were constructed and local exhaust ventilation systems were designed to capture contaminants at the source. 3 - For processes using hazardous materials, local exhaust ventilation systems were designed to capture contaminants at the source. 4 - "Dry floor guarding" systems have been implemented in the machine tool enclosures in order to minimize any escaping mist from the process. 5 - Micro-bacteria resistant coolants are used in the plant and biocides and utilized and monitored in order to control the bacterial counts in such systems. These control measures are over and above what is done in a typical, newly constructed manufacturing plant. With these control measures being utilized, extensive testing was done through the manufacturing facility to ensure that MIOSHA (and the much more stringent company requirements) exposure limits were being met. During the testing, the facility was ventilated at a rate of 0.21 CFM per square foot. At this ventilation rate, the facility was far below the company\'s target exposure limits, never measuring higher than a 0.13 mg/cubic meter exposure level. The Owner operates their facility at a ventilation rate of 0.5 CFM per square foot. This adds another level of safety factor to the building design. We are proposing that we run the energy model, in both the baseline and proposed case, with a ventilation rate of 1.0 CFM per square foot. We then intend to use the Exceptional Calculation Methodology of ASHRAE 90.1 to quantify our energy cost savings by lowering the ventilation rate. We intend to re-run our "proposed" model with 0.5 CFM per square foot to determine the cost savings for this exceptional calculation.