LEED 2012 - ENERGY + ATMOSPHERE PR 2 - 2nd Commenting Period

We're a way off this rating system yet, and they'll be changes up to the last second no doubt. If you have a project that is due for re-cert...register it right NOW...stay in V3 where we know what the operational parameters are.

The option you've noted is a particularly controversial one Elizabeth, and it will be interesting to see if it remains in the final document. Whereas EBOM now provides a 'reduction from historical use' path for only a subset of building types at the margin, this change would allow it for all building types, even those encompassed by ENERGY STAR. And yes, I agree that it would definitely increase the number of EB-certified buildings, although I candidly think it would also signal a dramatic shift in what EB certification actually means.

I think you're making a very reasonable argument for the option to exist. It's not an argument I agree with but it has a lot of attractive elements to it.

My point about changing the meaning of EB is simply meant to note that currently EBOM is intended to certify top performing buildings relative to their peers, particularly as it relates to energy use. That is, when you walk into an EB-certified building, one thing you know without doubt is that the building is among the top 1/3rd of similar buildings in terms of energy efficiency. Option 3, as written, eliminates that certainty. Now what I know about that building is either a) that the building is among the top 25% (EBOM 2012 updates the EStar minimum to 75) or b) that the building has improved efficiency by 20% recently. A building can improve its EStar score from 30 to 36 and whereas before it was not a LEED building, now it is.

Again, I think there are arguments to be made that that's OK and that a 20% improvement is meaningful enough to merit certification, and getting buildings into the program is worth trading that current idea/principle/etc... but it seems quite clear to me that it changes the meaning of the certification in a significant way.

Fun to talk about, regardless. . .

Dan

I just saw this discussion while searching LEEDuser site for help in meeting LEED EBOM 2009 EAprereq2. My project building seems to fall through the cracks of current set of rules. It is <5000 sq ft, so can not even apply for Energy Star. I am fairly certain that when I registered the project in Dec 2009, EPA Energy Star did not have that size restriction. So the rules changed, and the Portfolio Manager curve has also changed recently making it harder to achieve high enough score for benchmarking a building. This office is in a converted old house that was built in 1876! The owners want their office space to be LEED certified, but I think I have run into a brick wall with this EA Pre-req. It seems like Portfolio Manager doesn't reward the longevity of a structure or even the use of new technologies, we have onsite solar being converted to electricity for use at project building, but Portfolio Manager doesn't seem to reward that either. Any advice on how I can comply with this EBOM 2009 pre-req?

Janna, correct me if I'm reading you question wrong, but EBOM offers a compliance path for proejcts not elgible for Energy Star rating. You still use Portfolio Manager, but you don't rely on the rating. So I think you can use it despite the building not being eligible.

I can use it, but it isn't clear if my building is really being rated against comparable buildings - small square footage, small occupancy - to get the Portfolio Manager number for Current Weather Normalized Source Energy INtensity. This is what I have been told should be plugged into the LEED Case 2 Calculator. Is that correct? Question 2 is do I have the option to use Case 2, Option 2 and find my own set of comparable (3) buildings to compare the project building's 12 months of energy data. The reference guide states it as on "OR" option, but when you do the eligibility Tab on the Case 2 Calculator, Option 2 is for a very limited category of building and not for office buildings. That sends me back to having to comply with a very stringent "pre-requisite" target that relies on EPA Portfolio Manager with imbedded comparisons that have changed or could change (ASHRAE 90.1, CBECS 2003 average went to median). I am having a hard time explaining to my client why we can't comply with this pre-requisite now as we are almost ready to submit when 2 years ago when we registered the project, we could. I want to be sure that I am only allowed to comply with Case 2, Option 1 before telling client that we have to do more to the facility to reduce energy usage. Thanks for any help you can give me!

Janna - There are a couple of issues wrapped up in your question and I think a useful answer will require disentangling them a bit. The first issue seems to be the viability of generating an Energy Star rating (as opposed to a label) for a building under 5000 SF. Offhand I don't know if Portfolio Manager will generate a rating for a building that size (although your last comment about the building formerly meeting EAp2 under the old EStar algorithm suggests it will), but if you can generate a rating via Portfolio Manager, that is almost certainly the appropriate compliance path. If PM will not provide a rating due to the size of the building, the door to Case 2 would then open. The compliance paths are not intended to offer an open choice - they are more of a process of elimination series of options. The second issue seems to be the change in the Energy Star algorithm for determining the rating and its effect on your rating & EAp2 compliance; I can't speak for GBCI in any official capacity on this topic, but I can tell you from experience with previous algorithm changes that GBCI understands the implication these changes have for projects and is generally sympathetic. If you have old SEPs for the building documenting the fact that it previously met EAp2 under the old algorithm (and that your energy consumption has stayed the same since then) they are likely to work with you to find a documentation formula that makes sense.
Hope that helps a little bit,
Dan

I think I got on a tangent and didn't clarify. Sorry. No, I don't have a previous SEP, I just acquired 12 months of energy data for this past year. This office building is small, historic building and they are so energy conscience (use opened windows and daylighting a lot!) I just can't believe that they can not meet the pre-requisite. It seems more fair for buildings to compare themselves to similar buildings instead of a database (CBECS 2003) that doesn't tell you the target for energy - it just references "offices" back to Portfolio Manager. Is there a way to see examples of similar buildings to mine that have achieved LEED EB? I need suggestions on how to do it, we have already upgraded HVAC, windows, insulation, added solar PV panels. I am sure that this building performs better than any other circa 1876 building used as an office, but don't know how to meet EAp2. Why does Portfolio Manager ask for number of computers? Would having 5 computers with 4 FTEs in a 2100 square foot office be the reason we aren't making it?