Alternative Complaince for large energy user

I would suggest that rather than seek an exception you try to address the refrigeration load by seeking some savings. The baseline for refrigeration equipment is contained here - https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-existing-buildings-commer...

No. All energy use within and associated with the project must be included.

Table 3 in Appendix 3 deals with larger refrigeration equipment. It does not look like the link I shared before works. Google "leed v4 retail process loads" and you should see a link to Appendix 3.

Yes that is possible. The guidance for how to do so is in the Reference Guide.

Hi Marcus, We have a similar problem with a manufacturing facility where 80% of the energy use is from steam. Since almost everyone in the industry has shifted to using variable-speed drive sewing machines, its not possible to claim that these efficient machines are better than standard.....plus there is nothing standardized such as energy star concerning this kind of equipment. So there is literally no way to achieve the pre-requisite unless we include the rice husk boiler fuel. However we don't want to deduct this fuel source as a renewable source, we want to claim its lower cost per unit of steam production compared to diesel. Normally cost of fuel comparison is allowed, so we believe that following this logic, this is potentially a viable path/argument towards meeting the pre-requisite. Any comments? If this doesn't work then we have to cancel the project and use the local certification system--I can't see any garment facilities in SE Asia meeting this pre-requisite. I would be grateful for your input.

Under v4 you have to meet the prerequisite without renewables so you will need to do something. Boiler efficiency and waste heat recovery come to mind first when you are talking steam. I have never seen a facility that simply cannot be more energy efficient than standard practice but I obviously don't know much about this one.

You are not allowed to compare different fuels to demonstrate a cost savings. Assuming it qualifies it could count as a renewable and needs to be documented that way. This should help to score many points as long as you can figure out how to meet the prerequisite. If the remaining use is also mostly process then this can certainly be difficult and would force you to find savings in the process.

You might also want to look at this pilot credit using different metrics - https://www.usgbc.org/credits/eapc95v4 

Thanks Marcus--its very clear-- as we had feared. We'll look at the few remaining options but this might no longer be a LEED project. Best solution might actually be switching to a different certification system--for the life of me I can't see why an efficient building using efficient production equipment with mainly renewable source of energy shouldn't merit certification but I now have the job of explaining that to the client.

I will point out that the connected load of refirgeration equipment is not the running load. By example, if I place a 1 Liter Water Bottle in a fridge, electric energy is used to transfer the heat from that bottle to the outdoors until the bottle reaches 6ºC. Thereafter, keeping the 6ºC atmosphere in the fridge is a function of the insulative properties of the fridge only and the heat rejection of the infiltrating heat through the insulation and air changes from door operation is minimal in comparison.

It would be interesting to find data on the metered energy consumption of equipment in a similar running kitchen and comparing it to the connected loads, i.e. the rated power of the equipment.

Another thought that came to mind is using the rejected heat for other purposes?

On a recent project I was supprised to find that the Dishwasher had a hood with intergrated heat recovery to preheat the water in the tank under it.