All,
We are working on a unique facility (production greenhouse) which based on my understanding of EA Pre1 Cr2 can only meet this prerequisite using Case 2 options B--historical data and C- benchmarking; as it does not meet the requirements under Option A generic benchmark of Other.
We have gathered appropriate benchmarking data, but as the facility is part of a campus, in which sub-meters were not originally installed when the project was built 3 1/2 years ago we do not have 3 years of historical building data.
Subsequently sub-meters have been installed, and we have 1 1/2 years of building energy data, we also have 3 + years of campus wide historical data. However it looks as if we need three years of historical building specific energy data in order to fill out portion B of the Case 2 Calculator, and cannot use part C unless we have B finished.
Is there precedent for using only benchmarking data when historical data is not available? Has anyone ever encountered similar issues and developed solutions that GBCI/USGBC will accept? I seem to recall precedents in previous O&M version CIRs that exempted historical data if sub-meters were installed.
Thanks for any insights!
Marc
Jenny Carney
Vice PresidentWSP
LEEDuser Expert
657 thumbs up
January 21, 2011 - 11:26 am
Marc, In my experience there are some case when allowances are made for a lack of historic data, but this would need to happen through the CIR process.
Raphael Sperry
Simon & Associates, Inc. Green Building Sonsultants49 thumbs up
May 23, 2011 - 7:08 pm
Hello Marc & All,
I have a similar situation with two other buildings that are not eligible for energy star (one is a sports arena, the other is an airport terminal). They both are part of larger complexes with a master electric meter and only started submetering recently. Their is the streamlined Option 2A, but in that case you are compared to the national average "other" buildings, which is not a good comparison for these high-use facilities. So having three years of historic data is a requirement, but it's not clear why, as in the case of these non-ratable buildings it just makes them wait for eligibility for EBOM without really making the process of measuring their energy consumption any more robust. In fact, if they wait until year 3 to improve energy efficiency, they would score better. Shouldn't they have the incentive to improve energy efficiency as soon as possible, and then to submit as soon as they want?
Anyone else have thoughts on this?