AIA 2030 Reporting Question

Kjell, I think I'm missing or not quite understanding one of your steps. I'm all about finding better ways to demonstrate performance, so would like to understand this more fully. You are suggesting we take the baseline code energy model and first compare that to the CBECS baseline followed by comparing the projected EUI to this new baseline, but your formula (assuming I'm understanding correctly) seems to back-calculate to the original CBECS baseline based on code minimum rather than shifting/scaling it. Can you clarify further how your CBECS-like baseline is different from the actual CBECS baseline? Perhaps if you provide what the CBECS baseline would be in this example, that would help. Jeremy

Hi Kjell, I'm definitely not a black belt on this, but we only use the CBECs at the concepts/SDs level. As soon as we have a real energy model (LEED-type) we use that baseline because it's a more meaningful measure of how we're doing. I'll give you an example: we do a lot of residence halls in Climate Zone 4A. The CBECs baseline is 73, and that averages out all sorts of things (is there dining? kitchens? is it ventilated? is it traditional, suite-style, or apartments)? Our LEED baselines vary from 55.5 to 79.2 (none of those with dining, by the way). Shifting from concepts to actual baseline does feel like the goalposts are moving (one minute you're 68% better, the next minute you're only 40% better) but if the end goal is zero energy, that % reduction should be based on the specifics of your building, not CBECs, IMHO.  Happy to hear what others are doing. 

All- I think this may also help to highlight the concern as we are going through the same thing trying to find the right real baseline. For our multifamily projects we have run the first batch through DDX/zero tool. Of the first 11 projects, only one was energy modeled. That one is striving for LEED platinum with moderate but not insignificant levels of energy efficiency upgrades better than code. The other ten are code minimum for energy efficiency. All projects are in Seattle, so we do have a benefit of a stringent local code. For the 10 non-modeled projects, Zero tool indicates we achieve a 48% energy efficiency by just using the local code input defaults for baseline and design EUI. For our one project where we really tried and modeled, when we input the modeled design EUI into the DDX, we get 32% energy efficiency. The signal that gives is we should not model our projects and not try to really find out what is going on and dial it in. Just use energy code minimum prescriptive measures and your building will perform better. We know that is not the case, but that is the message. Jon Hall AIA, LEED AP® BD+C, HOMES O +1 206.467.5828 D +1 206.902.5508 C +1 206.551.7340

We're using the modeled baseline for 2030 reporting once projects have one (85% of our 2030 square footage has an energy model, compared to the 2018 DDx average of 47%). I won't lie, the DDx often penalizes us for it, especially for higher ed projects, where we could realize much higher savings if we just went with the CBECs default.  There was rumor that the DDx was changing--anyone have any insights into how? If so, I have a few thoughts to share with those in charge...      

Kjell, At HKS we are doing exactly what you describe. We are currently going through our 250+ projects in the DDx for QAQC and are flagging those that have a proposed pEUI which is less than the code equivalent savings and adjusting the baseline as you indicate. (Accounting for the % energy savings between the code baseline and proposed model + the code equivalent savings). Of course this is contingent on the energy modeling having been done with the creation of a code baseline to establish what the % savings should be.   We have had a lot of debate over this approach internally, last year we only adjusted DDx baselines to be equal to code equivalent savings but we believe more firms are doing the adjusted baseline with the additional % energy savings. Our interpretation of the DDx guidance allows us to do that (we think) https://2030ddx.aia.org/helps/code-equivalent-savings Glad to see others are having the same issues with the CBECS 2003 Baselines as an apples to apples comparison to proposed pEUI coming out of energy modeling softwares

I had a conf. call with Matt last week going through the DDx tool. He might be a good first start about who to talk to about making changes. Matthew Welker, Assoc. AIA Director, Sustainability Metrics & Operations The American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006 2030commitment@aia.org Cindy Davis LEED AP BD+C Senior Associate MG2 1101 Second Ave, Ste 100 / Seattle, WA 98101 Direct 206-962-6654 / Main 206-962-6500 MG2.com Disclaimer: The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and the property of MG2. From: Kjell

Kjell, I agree with the logic behind the approach you've outlined for deriving a 'reasonable' benchmark for oddball building types, given the spirit of the 2030 Commitment (fixed starting point of existing buildings survey 2003, then targeting reduction of 50% (2005-09), 60% (2010-14), 70% (2015-2019), and so on) given that the 2003 survey doesn't have enough buildings in total (~5000) to come up with meaningful benchmarks of uncommon building types.  However, I believe the "average" savings for buildings designed to a given energy code (used in the DDx when you don't have an energy model) is based on the average achieved for the 16 reference canonical buildings averaged over all the climate zones.  Each time they update the energy code, they usually do a study to quantify the energy savings that code will provide (for example, see this study by PNNL), and often those studies point out that the % savings are different for different building types, because some of the technologies that have improved since the last code revision have a bigger impact on some building types than others.  So your approach is just a rough approximation. But as my mother used to say, "Sometimes, bad breath is better than no breath at all." Re: Michelle's point: It's completely normal for a project in a common building type (say, office building or K12 school) to be simultaneously 70% better than 2003 CBECS and 25% better than ASHRAE 90.1-2016.  (That's why we update codes!). The 70% better-than-2003-CBECS is still what the AIA 2030 DDx wants to see reported. Eventually, of course, the goal is just to get to net zero one way or the other (low energy use, onsite or offsite clean energy), at which point this all becomes moot. Hope this helps, --Z ---------------------- Minor note: In both your initial post and your reply, I think a divide-by sign got left off. In the first message, you wrote.      "In this example 40(1-40%) gives me 66.6 as a CBECS-like baseline." ...I assume you meant 40/(1-40%).

We still use this method for projects where we don’t have a CBECS/ZeroTool baseline, say a halitosis laboratory in a climate region where Labs21 doesn’t have an comparables (or just a couple, with WIDELY varying EUIs). And for those labs that do have a number of comps in Labs21, if there’s a question, we often compare the “code equivalent extrapolation” to the existing labs, to give us an idea of what this is telling us and to develop the most appropriate baseline. Labs21 is a flawed proxy for CBECS 2003 of course, given that it has (I think . . . ) mostly current/recent data, versus what labs were doing in 2003 – which was typically a LOT more air changes (10 or 12 vs the 6 that is typical today), with a lot of the “write up” (office) space in the high air change lab itself. Chris Flint Chatto AIA, LEED AP BD+C Principal ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP T 503.863.2324 E chris.chatto@zgf.com 1223 SW Washington Street, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 From: Kjell And

We’ve not bothered with trying to adjust the CBECS baselines. It’s a blanket EUI 75 for K-12, which is kind of useless because high schools are much higher than elementary schools- when we used to do Target Finder the HS baseline was usually 90 and ES was 40. And they all have the same 2030 80% target of 15 (achievable with an ES, extremely hard for a HS). So we just plug in our data and don’t worry about it. At this point I am focusing on how close the projects get to net zero ready (as WA schools typically can’t afford the PV), not by their energy reduction percentage. Kristian From: K