Please see below for comments from USGBC relative to our design submittal for Portland Fire & Rescue Station 21 (1000020729).
We've sent inquires to USGBC several times with no response. Please refer to the last two lines of this message for our request for additional information relative to USGBC's calculations. What is the best way to get this information? Thank you for any help you can offer!
EAc1 OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE - REVIEW COMMENTS FROM USGBC:
08/05/2014 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW
Additional documentation has been provided for EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance claiming an energy cost savings of 30.04%. However, when EAp2 was recalculated based on the issues noted there, the project has demonstrated an energy cost savings of 29.95%.
06/19/2014 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW
The LEED Form states that the project has achieved an energy cost savings of 30.2%. However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed.
TECHNICAL ADVICE
1. Refer to the comments within EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and resubmit this credit.
EAp2 MINIMUM ENERGY PERFORMANCE - REVIEW COMMENTS FROM USGBC:
The LEED Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review and states that the project has achieved an energy cost savings of 30.04%.
However, to demonstrate compliance, the following new issues surfaced as a result of the response to Preliminary Review must be addressed.
1. The LEED Form Table EAp2-5 was not completed correctly. The Proposed Case energy type for pumps has been left blank and due to this the pump energy consumption is not accounted for in the annual proposed energy consumption. In order to award partial credit the LEED Form has been corrected to reflect electricity as energy type for pump in the Table EAp2-5. For future projects ensure to update all the inputs correctly.
Due to these issues, the revised Proposed Case energy consumption is 160,755 kWh/year of electricity, and 1,352 therms/year of natural gas, with a revised Proposed Case energy cost of $ 12,069.96/year. This leads to a total percentage improvement of 29.95%, which meets prerequisite requirements.
EAc1 OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE: INQUIRY FROM MEP (Electrical) CONSULTANT:
"Only 0.09% cost saving was denied. May we please have the calculation from the review?"
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5868 thumbs up
September 17, 2014 - 9:59 am
How have you contacted USGBC? The best way is through the contact us page on GBCI.org. If that is what you did it can take them a few weeks to respond.
This sounds like such a simple adjustment that you should be able to replicate it yourself. They saw pump energy use in the output report from the modeling software that was not on the form and they added it and recalculated the savings. The reviewer probably just added the pump energy use to the form and let the form recalculate the savings.