Hi there,
I am working on a LEED v4 project looking at following EApc95 for Energy. I understand that the v4.1 Energy Reduction credit follows the same requirements as v4 EApc95 (except with an update to ASHRAE 090.1-2061), whereby the project can achieve additional savings by including a combination of energy cost reduction and reduced GHGs compared to a baseline building. However, I am working on an Ice Rink project, which in most cases would use Natural Gas, that has decided to electrify as an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from the building. The project is located in an area where Natural Gas has an emissions factor 6 times that of the electrical grid. The issue we are having is that the overall energy cost reduction is quite minimal (~18%) compared to the baseline. This is because ASHRAE Energy Modeling rules require an energy model to be modelled against a building with like systems, hence the project is comparing against an all-electric building where most efficiencies are already modelled at 100% in the baseline.
My question is whether there are any ACPs for all-electric buildings, or at a minimum if there are any innovation credits for all-electric buildings. Any support would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Tim
Jamy Bacchus
Associate PrincipalME Engineers
25 thumbs up
September 22, 2021 - 3:32 pm
This post touches on many nerves. Let's poke the snake and see who responds!
...But before we do that, oddly you note you have 18% savings which isn't too shabby for a process dominated building type. If you told me you couldn't meet the prereq, then we'd have an issue.
Let's try and map out your choices (which I likely am mostly getting right):
1a. v4 EAc2 using 90.1-2010 as-is with a baseline fuel matching your proposed per G3.1.1A
1b. v4 EAc2 using 90.1-2010 with a baseline fuel matching your proposed but scored using EApc95 for your % saved
1c. v4 EAc2 using 90.1-2010 but EApc111 using 90.1-2016 methodology, but revised BPFs and scoring points on energy cost savings like usual
1d. v4 EAc2 using 90.1-2010 but EApc111 using 90.1-2016 methodology, but revised BPFs and scoring points on GHG reductions and energy cost savings per online Tables 2 and 3
1e. ...and maybe this is allowable: v4 EAc2 using 90.1-2010 but EApc111 using 90.1-2016 methodology, but revised BPFs but feeding those results into EApc95????
2a. use ID 10488 and model per 90.1-2013 which means you get your baseline's fuel type based on CZ, which is likely to be a System 3 (now you're cooking with gas!)
2b. ...or not 2b? That is the question, which I've never contemplated. Maybe you can overlay 10488 with EApc95????
3. switch to v4.1 and use 90.1-2016 and that methodology entirely.
Comments and notes:
...some quirks the TAG and staff are aware of: If your project is in BC or Quebec you will have very low GHG emissions for electricity use and so will your baseline if it too is all-electric. 0/0 will get interesting. Some regions of North America have cheap nat gas rates compared to electricity but with heat pumps some of that disparity is levelized but not always.
Some obvious things to review: actual rates vs virtual rates and annualized GHG emissions factors vs hourly-level electrical grid emissions factors. If your baseline is nat gas, review it with traditional emissions and those from Std 189.1-2020 and ask GBCI their thoughts.
v4.1 says nothing about using marginal grid emissions factors (short run or long run) vs average hourly factors. But kick those tires and ask questions!
...And since you didn't mention it: on-site solar will reduce your energy costs, but may not have the same impacts on the proposed's GHG emissions if you're mostly hydro.