We have a project that received a large grant from the state to put on Solar panels. Energy costs are relatively low, so while our building is preforming quite well in energy savings, the Cost savings are small.
If we can count the grant as part of our energy savings we are in great shape.
Has anyone been able to get EAp2, EAc1 points by applying the grant to the cost saving? Amortized over 15 years? Setting up a trust account with the grant $ and paying it out per kW?
How are tax incentives taken over time accounted for?
The panels are on the building roof and then feed into the grid.
CIR#2473 has been brought up, but we feel it is a different condition.
Our project state only offers grants and not rate subsidies. Disallowing the grant puts those states at a serious disadvantage.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
May 10, 2013 - 2:53 pm
You can only count the avoided energy costs associated with the operation of the systems, not any first cost savings. Now if you are in a state that offers SRECs I might try and argue that revenue stream as it is related to operation and not installation.
Technically I do not think you can count the PV power at all unless it feeds into your building before going into the grid. Otherwise your building is just a big solar rack. Maybe a CIR changed this so I would have to go check but I would not feel comfortable taking credit for hosting a PV system that I did not get any power from directly. Maybe that is not your situation but it sounds like ti from the statement above.
Tyra Sorensen
21 thumbs up
May 10, 2013 - 3:16 pm
The building does use the PV power, it's not just a rack.
No option for SRECs.
It seems really unbalanced to not account for grants as they directly reduce the size of the construction loan and thus reduce the monthly cost to the owner. For a state with low energy costs, a rate subsidy is less valuable, and contributes less to overall savings for the owner.
How are tax incentives that are spread over 5 years accounted for?
Or reduced property taxes?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
May 10, 2013 - 3:59 pm
They would accrue to the bottom line similar to the grant.
While the grant may have resulted in the ability to buy the PV it does not generate any energy cost savings by itself. It offsets a capital cost which impacts operational costs but that does not make it an operational cost savings.
If LEED counted this grant how would we account for a grant for a green roof or pervious paving or restoration of habitat or just getting the LEED certification itself. Many green buildings get grants and I would think that getting one is a reward in and of itself that LEED does not really need to incentivize.
Tyra Sorensen
21 thumbs up
May 10, 2013 - 4:20 pm
Thank you.
This is consistent with my continued frustration that energy is measured in dollars rather than energy.
This same building would get 9 + more points if it were built in the NE or west cost rather than midwest - simply due to the cost of energy and the grant vs rate subsidy.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
May 13, 2013 - 8:24 am
I agree that the metric should be energy use, at least in part. During the development of the next version of LEED the metric to use was recommended by the EA TAG to be a combination of site EUI and cost. Apparently some market feedback shot that down and we are stuck with cost only again.