EV Charger Energy

Hi Cory.

Maybe you're looking for this:
  ID#10499 - EV Charging in Model https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10499

  Rating System LEED BD+C: New Construction, LEED O+M: Existing Buildings Rating System Version v4 - LEED v4, v3 - LEED 2009 Inquiry ASHRAE 90.1-2019 recently published an Exception to G1.2.2 that permits energy used to recharge or refuel vehicles that are used for off-building site transportation purposes to be excluded from the building performance model. Can we apply this exception to our LEED D+C project, when using an earlier version of ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G? Ruling The project seeks to apply the following Exception to ASHRAE 90.1-2019 G1.2.2 to its energy model developed under ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G (2007, 2010, 2013, or 2016): “Exception to G1.2.2 Energy used to recharge or refuel vehicles that are used for off-building site transportation purposes shall not be modeled in the baseline building performance or the proposed building performance.” Yes, it is acceptable for the project to exclude the electric energy consumption associated with electric charging of vehicles used for off-site transportation such as buses, commuter vehicles, or privately owned cars, provided that the project provides separate electric metering for the electric vehicle charging versus all other electric energy used within the LEED project boundary. When reporting post-occupancy building energy usage in accordance with EA Prerequisite: Building Metering, the project must separately report both building energy usage and energy associated with the electric vehicle charging, as applicable. This exception applies only to the energy consumption for EV Chargers used by commuters and transit vehicles. The exception does not apply to energy consumption for EV Chargers used for vehicles on-site (e.g. golf carts on a golf course; electric fork lifts; etc.); energy consumption for EV Chargers used for vehicles on-site must be included in the building energy model.    

It is my undeerstanding that the "inclusion of all energy consumption and costs within and associated with the building project" is a prerequisite requirement. I am unaware of any exceptions. 

I have also read energy for EV charges may be excluded. Unfortunately I do not remember where. I have never seen that it has been included in the energy performance credit or comment from revisers that is shall be included. 

This is an extremely bad decision on the part of USGBC and ASHRAE as it sets a precedent for the exclusion of energy use directly associated with the building. I realize that the gas used by communiting/visiting vehicles is not counted but frankly it should be counted. We should be including more energy use associated with the project in the calculations and not seeking exclusions. Frankly I am tired of people seeking exceptions instead of doing what is right from a green building perspective. From a systems perspective the location of the building has huge energy implications. The more we biforcate that energy use the less the standard and LEED are accurate representations of the whole we are seeking to effect. All of these systems affect one another. We don't exclude "industrial" energy use even though 90.1 does not regulate it. I see no reason why transportation energy should be any different. This is simply headed in the wrong direction if we are to address energy issues in a more comprehensive and systemic manner.

Marcus, You'll get no argument from me. My 2012 ACEEE paper argues for inclusion of transportation emissions, embodied carbon and embedded carbon in water. My 2020 Greenbuild session with Peter Haas and Kelly Roberts specifically layers transportations, materials and operational carbon--I dubbed it "Designed for LEED Zero Carbon". It's good that LEED Zero Carbon for O&M includes these, but you're unlikely to get there unless you consider it in the design phase. And ignoring any of these carbon emissions promotes suboptimal results.   Ted Tiffany, Brendan Owens and I were working on a unified carbon credit which I think Brendan dubbed "one carbon credit to rule them all". Ted is now trying to develop methodology similar to TEWI for refrigerants as we find the current refrigerant calcs lacking in guidance and too insular. 
  For LEED to remain a top tier rating system it has to evolve and not create arbitrary boundaries--the planet certainly doesn't care for gerrymandered carbon boundaries.
  Regards, Jamy      

Agreed! The ridiculous steps backward are very frustrating.

Don't get me wrong, this is an interesting point, but... Does anyone have a coherent, defensible way to estimate the "outside the project boundary" energy? And while we are at it, let's just go ahead and open this up to all Scope 3 energy. Last time I looked, USGBC and LEED were nibbling around the edges of this transportation energy to/from the project with the Location credits - that's not going to hack it any more?

Something on this subject that has been bothering me - the energy that a commuter or visitor expends travelling to or from a building is actually Scope 1 (burning gasoline or diesel fuel in their ICE) or Scope 2 energy (from the power plant that provided electricty to their EV) to the traveller.  If the building takes that on as Scope 3 energy, then isn't it getting double counted?  At the very least, shouldn't the traveller and the building have to split it between them? And what if the traveller is taking public transportation or rideshare?  How much of the Scope 1 or 2 energy is assigned to them?  Does it matter if the bus is full or nearly empty?  And is the traveller responsible for all the energy of the rideshare, and the driver only responsible for the energy between rides?

_Kim, Let's start with Scope 1 refrigerants. These aren't directly calculated in a manner which treats their leakage as GHGs! We calculate them in a strange metric which belies their impact. 
  Next we should start including Scope 2 methane emissions from nat gas production and leakage. ASHRAE 189.1-2017 addendums z, aa and ak added this to the new standard. NREL's next update to Cambium hourly electric emissions will include more upstream emissions than the first release. 
  And as for Scope 3, back in the late 2000's USGBC funded CNT's Transportation Energy Intensity (TEI) online tool. It's what I used in my 2012 paper and Peter Haas dusted off for our 2020 Greenbuild session on total carbon. I can only guess how much further we'd all collectively be in this nascent field if we had committed to it 14 yrs ago. As such trip chaining and allocation of the transit to a specific property (not wanting to double count the same trip to both a business and a residence) are still unresolved. But some robust estimation tools were developed. Those no longer include forecasted EV adoption curves. So more research and funding is needed.  

Let's also remember that allocating Scopes 1, 2, 3 and divvying them up between parties in the chain only matters if you're doing formal carbon accounting and trying to get credit for reductions (or pay offsets for emissions). If you're just trying to incentivize carbon reducing behaviors and design choices, double-counting isn't a problem. In fact, it's great if every party in the system takes responsibility for minimizing ALL their emissions, even if someone else is also trying to do the same. I don't know that LEED's carbon reporting structure is rigorous enough to support transactions, so why worry about what carbon emission is in each party's scope?

Kim those boundaries are illusions. You can always extropolate to the end and call it impractical but I belive that misses the whole point. Count what we can and figure out ways to count more, with a goal of including it all. We may never get there but it is better than going backwards. In that direction is guarenteed and perpetual inadequacy. 

Very big thanks to Marcus, Jamy, and Nadav for the conversation here.  It wasn't the thread I was expecting, but it was one of the threads I needed.  Marcus -- I appreciate your ability to take the philosophical and immediately ground it in practical realities.  Have your thumbs up, and I hope this gets featured somewhere on LEEDuser.  I might put "those boundaries are illusions" on a mug.

Thanks Nick.

Ditto. Thanks Nick. 

I do appreicate the seemingly random but candid and necessary discussion from folks like Greg Kats, Marcus and countless others who have worked to keep our focus on what's important.

I'd be happy to have a broader conversation on where LEED v4.1 and v5 should go.

Do say 'hi' to Scott and Jenn for me!

Marcus, Jamy Is there any update on where this interpretation stands with V4.1? Can we use this for V4.1 as of 2025? Thanks,

William, Thanks for resurrecting one of my all-time favorite LEEDuser threads! "Boundaries are illusions" should be the preface to many conversations.  For LEED v4.0 you can still use ID#10499 - EV Charging in Model.

For LEED v4.1, if there hasn't been a formal LEED ID—I don't see one—then you'd have to use ASHRAE 90.1-2016 addendum at, which is the 90.1 addendum that added the EV charging exclusion for off-site vehicles. But GBCI has always wanted consistent applications of addenda to prevent cherrypicking by design teams. Someone else should weigh in the formal requirement for the use of addenda—I can't find anything beyond the April 2007 USGBC memo indicating the requirements for ASHRAE addenda—there has to be a newer document.

For LEED v5, 90.1-2019 has the same exception G1.2.2 for EV charging, so no addenda would be required.

That said we need to get better at assessing all carbon emissions, which includes module B8: User Activities transportation-related emissions. LEED v5 does a better job addressing this than v4 and v4.1 (See Location and Transportation: Transportation Demand Management credit language). But my comments to LEED v5 is that the overall weightings of LT, MR, WE and EA are skewed and you might get 4 pts for reducing VMT and 10 pts for optimize energy. And depending on your grid, fuel sources and site location relative to public transit, these point totals might be sending the market the wrong signals.

But v5 isn't written in stone ...yet. So we should keep the pressure on.

Cheers, Jamy

For what it is worth....the recently issued DOE's definition of Zero Emissions Building found at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/bto-national-definition-122724_0.pdf does not consider electric vehicle supply equipment to be building load. Although it does state that "it should be considered a key component to support reduced transportation-related emissions".  Great resurrection William; Excellent technical guidance Jamy; and quote of the century goes to Marcus "boundaries are illusions".

Thanks Jamy and Dave. I would agree with the DOE's Zero Emissions Building article. I know there are a mix of opinions on this, but if we are moving to a clean grid then I can't see why the building's energy use should be penalized for this matter. This energy use is not a building load. Perhaps it is better to have a separate platform or metric to collect and report this type of energy use, if there isn't one already. My project team will look into submitting a formal inquiry to USGBC. Thanks all, William