Hello Marcus,
This is a bit of a different post as I am wondering what your thoughts are on claiming energy savings from non-regulated energy loads. USGBC has allowed various paths (ACPs, LI’s, etc.) on v3 projects but are still determining how to formally address this in v4.
In our experience, savings can be claimed if the project’s non-regulated process loads can be compared to (3) similar projects that have been built within the last (5) years. Another method we have found to be successful is to find utility incentive programs that recognize methods that reduce non-regulated energy loads.
There are revised Optimize Energy credit point thresholds for Core & Shell projects as well as projects that include an Existing Building portion – since such projects include energy consuming items outside the control of the project owner. One might be able to argue that some non-regulated process loads may also be ‘outside the control of the owner’.
Should non-regulated energy loads be excluded from the model entirely?
Should projects where a majority of the energy consumption is non-regulated be provided with a revised threshold similar to Core & Shell and Existing Buildings?
Maybe only provide leniency to get such buildings through the Energy prerequisite, but do not allow paths for such buildings to achieve higher point totals within the Optimize Energy credit?
Just curious what your thoughts are with respect to buildings that contain a high percentage of non-regulated energy loads (e.g. manufacturing).
Thank you for your continued expert guidance on the most complex forum of LEEDuser.
Kind regards,
Dave Hubka
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
July 5, 2018 - 12:34 pm
Hi David,
I think the general guidance is the same in v4.
Yes all energy use within and associated with the project must be included. That is why that statement is in the prerequisite language. Mother Nature does not care what the energy is used for, only the impacts associated with the consumption. Both process and non-process energy use have these impacts which is what LEED is trying to address.
The methods you cite for establishing the baseline are still valid in my mind. In general the baseline should be "standard industry practice in that region of the world or for that particular industry". Some processes are difficult to establish a baseline for, some are very easy. Establishing a reasonable baseline is often the most difficult part of the exceptional calculation.
I am not aware of any energy use associated with any building that would be outside the control of the project's owner. Maybe you could give me an example.
Non-regulated energy loads should never be excluded from the model (note prerequisite language referenced above).
I have never agreed with threshold revisions for CS (even though I created them under v3) or high process load projects. Are they harder, yes? Does Mother Nature care, no? I think too many designers only want to deal with the building related energy use and just punt when it comes to process loads. The intention of including process loads, in part, is to require that the designers actually engage the owner in a discussion about the impacts associated with all the energy use and not just accept process and plug loads as something beyond their control. Any building claiming to be green should be attempting to address all of the energy loads, especially those with the highest usage, for their project.
What you suggest was done in v3 for the prerequisite but I have not seen a v4 version.
We have worked on several manufacturing projects. I have yet to see one where there are not reasonable areas to reduce the energy use associated with the process loads. So if you have a high process load project, address the process loads!
It is my pleasure to help and occasionally spout off my opinion, thanks for asking.
Dave Hubka
Practice Leader - SustainabilityEUA
LEEDuser Expert
530 thumbs up
July 5, 2018 - 3:16 pm
Thanks for your response Marcus, most appreciated.