Given the number of variables that have changed between v4 and v4.1 Optimize Energy analysis protocol, I am uncertain how to accurately preface the likely impact / rigor involved when providing project stakeholders an orientation. I understand the myriad of project specific variables make it impossible to provide a standard answer, but I'd like to "generally" prepare them for the realities ahead.
For example, the DOE Energy code Determination reports (https://www.energycodes.gov/development) appear to estimate an ~18% increase in efficiency/rigor between 90.1-2007 to 2010, another ~7-9% increase from 2010 to 2013, and another ~7-8% increase from 2013 to 2016. Using very rough math, this would seem to suggest a >30% increase in rigor (average across bldg types/climate zones) from 90.1-2007 (LEEDv3 project metric) to 2016 (LEEDv4.1 project metric)?
Per related LEEDv4 EAp2 post https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/leed-v41-ashrae-901-2016 , I understand the overall 90.1-2016 Appendix G comparative baseline criteria to be less stringent than that for v4? (similar to 90.1-2004 prescriptive values, resulting in a more standardized baseline / benchmark going forward). This would theoretically seem to make calculated higher performance less grueling for a Project design? But maybe not if EEMs successfully used in v3 and v4 projects are now mandatory provisions, thereby narrowing the options for engineered efficiency enhancements?
Similarly, I am curious if demonstrating mid to high performance under the new v4.1 PCI & GHG metrics requires project designers to "dig deeper", or perhaps necessitates installation of renewable energy system(s) in projects with higher process loads.
For example, what type of adjustments in approach is it requiring to ensure >30% PCI and GHG emission reduction success in a typical mid-size administrative office building? What about a building with 50+% process loads?
As such, I am hoping someone with a completed/approved v4.1 energy model can provide some feedback.....
Ultimately, any feedback is welcomed (e.g., "we thought our "typical" LEED efficiency design approach for a <Building type> would qualify for 30% but were surprised it only got us to 15%, therefore we did X, Y, Z to reach our specific Project's performance target")
Thanks for any insights!