Hi all, I'm confused about when OR over what period of time does the breakdown need to capture. I understand that it needs to roll up to the EAc1 declared annual energy use (mbtu). Does that mean we need to compare it with 1 years worth of metering data of the systems being monitored? OR is it a one time snapshot normalized and estimate over the year.
If the requirement is 1 year of data, what if we do not have 1 year of data?
Thanks in advanced for the help
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Hannah Bronfman
Senior Associate99 thumbs up
March 15, 2013 - 9:30 am
Hi Jeff
The consumption should be based off of one year of energy data, and the total annual breakdown of consumption should be fairly close to what is represented in EAp2 as the total annual consumption for site energy use.
Ideally, this breakdown would be completed using actual consumption data, using existing submetering and spot submetering where available, and performing engineering calculations to determine breakdown.
Using a known database, such as CBECS, could be a good place to begin the process of developing the breakdown but in our experience, an acceptable breakdown needs to be supported by more detailed analysis of actual building use such as spot metering.
Thanks
Hannah
Alexa Stone
ecoPreserve: Building Sustainability134 thumbs up
July 10, 2013 - 2:13 pm
Thanks Hannah. We received our review back and had a couple of questions....
Have you seen anyone have a discrepancy in accurately representing the total building energy use on EAp1/EAc1. Since this data is pulled from energy star this is Source energy rather than Site energy. Does it matter for this credit?
When submitting for submetering of the HVAC system we are looking for acknowledgement that we have submetered the district fed chilled water line the feeds chilled water into the building as well submeters on the actual AHU panels to measure energy consumed by fans and air distribution from the chilled water line. One measures power the other measures water flow (which is essentially an energy source in this case) does this make sense?
Hannah Bronfman
Senior Associate99 thumbs up
July 31, 2013 - 12:13 pm
Hi Jeff
For your first question, I've definitely seen this as an issue and we try to get the auditing agent to use the values listed in Energy Star when completing their study just to avoid this getting flagged by GBCI. But you should be able to clear up the issue with GBCI with a narrative explaining why there is a discrepancy. That said, I'm not sure if the Source/Site issue makes sense to me, because Energy Star lists both values on the Statement of Energy performance, and therefore the values should match.
With regard to your second question, I think I get how your metering is set up, but I'm not quite sure I understand your question - are you trying to include in your energy end-use breakdown as well as in this credit both the chilled water line meter and all downstream components? The trick to this credit is that you have to use the energy end-use breakdown to document, so if you are including downstream equipment, then also including the upstream metering wouldn't fly.
Let me know if I missed what you are asking, I'm happy to clarify more.
Hannah