I'm interested in updating an ASHRAE Level 3 report that we developed in-house in 2008 to a stripped-down Level 1 report for submittal for EAp1.
We have implemented a large number of the measures that were suggested, leaving essentially no low-cost, no-cost measures left.
Should I update the report by paring down the list of measures to include only the remaining measures, or show these measures as having been completed prior to and during the start of the EAp2 performance period, while removing them from the overall program costs/savings proposed in the (now) Level 1 report?
Jenny Carney
Vice PresidentWSP
LEEDuser Expert
657 thumbs up
December 22, 2010 - 5:33 pm
James, in my experience it would definitely be better to show these measures as identified in the initial report and implemented, rather than just show the remaining measures.
Also, you could extend your performance period back two years (and maybe five) to just take credit via that initial audit. The language in the RG for EAc2.1 gives the five year allowance, which in theory should be applicable to the EAp1 criteria to. It says: "It is recommended, but not mandatory, that project teams conduct the Level II analysis during the performance period. Projects that have completed a Level II analysis before the performance period...but within the past 5 years are not required to repeat the analysis to comply with this credit. However, the audit report and findings must be updated to integrate any significant changes in operating practices or building systems and to reflect changes in energy costs since the original audit was complete." pg. 172 of the EBOM v2009 RG.