See all forum discussions about NC-2009 EAc6
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 EAc6 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 EAc6
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 EAc6»
FAQs about EAc6 :

Our project is outside the U.S. We would like to earn this credit by purchasing RECs, but there are no Green-e options available here. It looks like most Green-e certified power comes from the U.S. What should we do?

We are pursuing this credit outside the U.S., and the owner wants to know if we can buy green power through a provider in our country that is not Green-e certified. We started comparing our national standard to Green-e and quickly found an area where the

Our project will be net-zero energy, i.e. will produce as much or more power than it consumes. Can we earn this credit?

The owner has purchased RECs for a percentage of energy use of its whole portfolio of buildings, or campus. Can we earn this credit for a single LEED building with this purchase?

We plan on pursuing this credit only if we need to do so to meet our certification target, i.e. if another credit we are counting on gets rejected. How late can we apply for this credit?

The owner purchases RECs based on an earlier prediction, but our energy model is now showing that we are just a little short of the credit threshold. What should we do?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 EAc6:Green power

Calculating Green Power

I want to figure out the default number to use to calculate how much green power in RECs a building would need to purchase. The RG that I have states 11.7 kWh/SF-yr for Office. The sample form online shows 17.3 kWh/SF for Office. I’m still unclear if these are already 35% of the total or if I have to take 35% of the default number. And I assume I need to multiply by 2 (70%) because it needs to be for 2 years. I also am not sure which default number to use. I can’t find an addendum on it. Anyone have any insight?

1
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:24

The difference is between the 1999 CBECS data and the 2003 CBECS data. The 11.7 is from the 1999 survey and the 17.3 is from the 2003 survey. I remember pointing out the oversight in the RG several years ago (LEED 2009 should have clearly been based on the most recent CBECS data which remains 2003) to USGBC/GBCI when I was chair of the EA TAG. I also could not find an addendum or interpretation on the subject so I am not sure if the change was published anywhere or not (unfortunately not unusual). Apparently it made it into the credit form however.
Profile picture for user GreenKat
Kathryn West
LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Green Globes Professional
JLL
LEEDuser Basic Member
112 thumbs up

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:30

what the heck? I'm searching now to find when this was changed. My project registered prior to the addendum requiring that the energy model number be used. So I was looking into CBECs. It's a public assembly and the 2003 data is about 2 times as much as the 1999 data.
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 00:23

If you buy the cheap RECs double next to nothing is still not very much for many projects.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.