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?

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?

As stated on the ENERGY STAR website (https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-managers/existing-b...), the EPA is in the process of updating the Portfolio Manager tool to incorporate CBECS data from the results of the 2012 survey. At this time, EPA will also update: source energy conversion factors used in all ENERGY STAR score models; the underlying ENERGY STAR models for a number of property types; and benchmarking options for data centers. The EPA has indicated that there is no way to forecast the change in score for any particular property or property type. Is there an alternative approach project teams registered to pursue certification under LEED EB O+M v2009 and v4 can take in order to not be penalized by these updates under EA prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance and EA credit Optimize Energy Performance?

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.