The link below, fromLEEDuser, indicates that if you can use actual utility bills x 50% x 2 yrs to calculate the required quantity of RECs as opposed to the EAc1 energy model design consumption x 35% x 2yrs.
http://www.leeduser.com/strategy/performing-leed-green-power-calculation...
I am not able to confirm this in the credit language or credit interpretations.
We have a LEED NC 2009 project that we are preparing the construction submittal for. Our actual energy consumption is substantially less than what our energy model suggests. We would like to be able to provide utility information, and use that as the basis of REC purchases.
Can actual utility bills be used instead of the Energy model?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
June 8, 2015 - 3:22 pm
I don't know that it is written in the Reference Guide or any specific interpretation. It is our understanding as reviewers that we are allowed to let project teams use their actual data.
It certainly makes logical sense. The actual data is by far the most accurate. If you were to engage in a green power contract with your utility it would also cover 100% of your actual usage and is not based on the modeling results. So it logically follows that buying RECs based on your actual data would be acceptable as well.
Jordan Kirrane
AssociateHurley Palmer Flatt
6 thumbs up
February 19, 2016 - 9:55 am
Hi there, in a comment from another related thread, Tristan mentions that as per 4/1/12 addendum from USGBC, "If an energy model was used to document compliance with EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the data from the energy model must be used as the basis for determining the electricity consumption for this credit." (Link: http://www.leeduser.com/strategy/performing-leed-green-power-calculation...)
@Rick, did you actually used estimated energy volumes and had you used the energy model approach for EAc1? How did it go? I agree with Marcus that if you have the measurements, it is better than the model outputs, however unsure as to how the GBCI would take this on?
Thanks,
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
February 19, 2016 - 10:34 am
Our firm has been a GBCI reviewer for over ten years. It is our understanding that actual data can be used and we have awarded EAc6 for projects who do so.
Jordan Kirrane
AssociateHurley Palmer Flatt
6 thumbs up
February 19, 2016 - 11:09 am
Hi Marcus, thanks for your prompt response. Just to confirm, the evidence that is required is past utility bills, the calculation, and contractual evidence of energy purchase. As our project is located in Sweden (and the information in Swedish), I am assuming a letter from the client confirming the estimate would be enough for the translation?
Many thanks,
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
February 19, 2016 - 11:15 am
You would not necessarily need to submit the actual bills. A summary calculation adding up the monthly data would be fine. If you want to upload one bill to demonstrate the accuracy of the data that is fine. Along with the data a letter from the owner would add to its validity. Depending on the source the harder part may be the documentation of the green power purchase. If buying US based RECs it is pretty easy. If buying a European product refer to the European ACPs for guidance on demonstrating Green-e equivalency.
Curtis Dorosh
Manager of Environmental ServicesMinistry of SaskBuilds
January 18, 2018 - 10:48 am
Utility Bills vs Energy Model for calculating EAc6. We are using Cogen to maximise natural gas usage and minimise expensive electricity purchase at our building. If we use the energy model to calculate EAc6 the credit is cost prohibitive. However if we use the actual utility bills the credit is very very affordable. I am wondering if the reviewers will obviously choose the Energy Model for the calculations... This could be the reason or one of the reasons the Model is chosen over the actual bills...
thoughts?