Hi All, We are working on a combined mall and office building in central europe. We are about 12% short on the Source EUI to achieve the prerequisite so it could be the long road to get this down to achieve the prerequisite. The mall is densely populated and so not really comparable to american malls as we believe portfolio manager to be tailored towards. So I have 2 questions; 1. Has anyone sucesfully issued a CIR to pass the prerequisite based on intent? The building has achieved a 8-12% energy saving for the last three years and we are comfortable we can reduce further but it will take time and the client is keen to progress the certification process. 2. I am not sure it's possible with what we have but can we progress with Option 2 if we define 10% of the area as service areas such as telephone companies, dry cleaning, post office, banks, etc. The area description says to include corridors in the gross - perhaps we could include the circulation mall area for this or am I clutching at straws? Also we feel we are a unfairly hit by the black box calculation as changing the location seems to make no difference to the annual weather-normalized Source EUI which seems a bit unfair considering the hot summers and cold winters encountered in the region. I may be missing something but if anyone can shed light on this then I would be appreciative - perhaps another issue to raise in a potetnial CIR? Looking forward to your comments Many thanks Rick

Post a reply

Ben Stanley

Senior Sustainability Manager

WSP - Built Ecology

LEEDuser Expert

188 thumbs up

Mon, 07/13/2015 - 15:46

Hi Rick, I don't think that the proposed CIR would be successful but I do think that two other options could work. 1. It does seem possible that USGBC/GBCI would allow the project to pursue Option 2 of the Case 2 calculator even though the primary spaces would typically fall under Case 1. I think it would require a formal CIR to get approval but you may want to reach out to GBCI informally to confirm. I think the trick with the CIR would be to demonstrate why comparison against the CBECS data set (according to Case 1) isn't appropriate for your building. Then, you can reinforce how Case 2, via the historic or historic with comparable buildings path, yields a more appropriate benchmark. 2. The other option would be to pursue the pilot credit EApc67 Energy Jumpstart. This option requires significant savings over a short period of time but may work in your case. Good luck and curious to hear how it works out.

Michael Opitz

Director of Sustainability

Iconergy

LEEDuser Basic Member

40 thumbs up

Tue, 07/14/2015 - 00:21

Hello Rick: I agree with all that Ben said, and have just a little to add at a more general level. Don't feel too discouraged that changing the location of your building results in little to no change in its energy performance. You'd be surprised at how much/how little the performance of buildings depends on local climate, depending on their size, age, and usage category. I.e., I would not necessarily expect a big, modern building used mostly as a mall to be highly sensitive to local climate conditions. Said another way: other factors are often bigger drivers. That's what ENERGY STAR sorts out for "ratable" usage types, and also what LEED's off-line calculator tries to do for other usages, though with less precision. So, although your situation is outside the U.S. Norm in some ways, the U.S. Procedure might still be more valid than you'd think at first blush. Don't give up on it too quickly. Good luck, Mike

Add new comment

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

You are currently logged in under an enterprise account

FAQs about EAp2 :

EAp2

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

Add new comment