Forum discussion
NC-2009 EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance
Has anyone ever gotten or heard about a plug load exemption for projects that demonstrate energy savings but due to extreme plug loads (over 60%) cannot meet the prerequisite 10%?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forTo post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
A portion of our building envelope is historic. Can we exclude it from our model?
For an existing building, do I need to rotate the model?
Our process load is higher than 25%. Do we have to justify that?
Our local code references ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Should I use that for my documentation, or 90.1-2007?
Can mezzanines open to floors below be excluded from the energy model?
How do I provide a zip code for an international location?
For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the climate zone?
For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the Target Finder score?
Do hotel rooms need automatic light shut-off control?
How commonly are the 90.1 mandatory compliance forms submitted as part of EAp2/EAc1?
The Section 9 space-by-space method does not include residential space types. What should I use?
Can the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) be used to energy model for LEED?
Which baseline HVAC system do I use if my building has no heating or air conditioning?
Our project has a diesel backup generator. Should we include it in our energy model?
Can SHGC be higher in the proposed than in the baseline model?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5868 thumbs up
April 23, 2015 - 2:27 pm
No exemptions are allowed. This is a fundamental issue related to reducing energy use within and associated with the project. So to meet the 10% you will need to address the plug loads (process loads) with an exceptional calculation.
Kim Lombard
Sustainability Leader and ArchitectAECOM
9 thumbs up
April 23, 2015 - 5:24 pm
Thank you for the speedy reply Marcus. In further research our Mechanical Engineer turned up a LEED Interpretation ID#10291 10/01/2013 that seems to satisfy our situation. We already know that we aren't getting points for EAc1 but are striving to not lose the certification completely. Would appreciate if you have an additional thoughts.
The Interpretation ruling reads ...
For buildings where unregulated loads account for more than 60% of project energy cost, the following alternative compliance path may be followed:
1. Create an energy model that includes all loads (regulated and unregulated), then remove the unregulated loads from the model through post-processing and demonstrate that the project meets the minimum performance required for EAp2.
2. Demonstrate that the proposed unregulated loads are 5% more efficient than the industry standard baseline or company average production efficiency using the one of the three ECM approaches outlined below.
3. In addition to the standard documentation required for EAp2, submit calculations showing energy model results with all loads (regulated and unregulated) included and all documentation necessary to demonstrate the 5% process energy improvement.
This alternative compliance path can only be used to demonstrate compliance with the EAp2 Minimum Energy Performance requirement. Points for EAc1 must be determined with 100% of the unregulated load included in the energy model.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5868 thumbs up
April 23, 2015 - 6:20 pm
I am aware of that ACP but frankly do not like it. It lets folks get around the fundamental issue - reducing energy use. So my only additional thought is to do something to reduce the energy use of the project, instead of seeking a way to do the minimum. I have yet to be involved with a project where we just could not find enough energy savings to get to 10%, even with process loads over 80%.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
April 27, 2015 - 4:44 am
I also agree. Actually in europe the irony is that industry processes use like 80% of our energy with the building sector at like 4%, but the industries get tax breaks on energy usage taxes. I'm sure economics play some sort of role together with lobbies and politics. I don't like it. I'm prepared personally to pay more for consumer goods. And I try to by local products. Hiked prices will also incentify more material reuse and less "throw away" mentality. With this kind of ACP, the USGBC is not driving the market as hard as it could. Clearly, it makes more sense to "go after" the "big hitters" in terms of who is wasting the most energy. Instead, the opposite is happening, and polititians are telling people to use microwaves to heat water. I'm all for the ASDA mantra of "every little helps", but even if the building sector became net zero and we saved close to 4% if the possible 4%, the industry sector has far more potential with far less effort. At the same time I understand that some physics are unavoidable...Aluminium simply requires a certain amount of energy to melt, but seriously, you can't tell me that the industries are all optimized. First hand experience tells me otherwise.
Kim Lombard
Sustainability Leader and ArchitectAECOM
9 thumbs up
April 27, 2015 - 8:43 am
Marcus - thank you again for your insight and comments. I very much appreciate this forum as a place where we can ask the questions concerning our project, even when the questions aren't popular ones. Like most projects this one has another side of the story.
Thank you!