Annual Weather Normalized Source Energy Intensity

Stefanie, It seems that EnergyStar has changed some of their nomenclature recently, and that may be the source of confusion. Looks like the "Current Weather-Normalized Source Energy Intensity" actually represents your "Annual Weather-Normalized Source EUI" See definition from EnergyStar website for "Current Weather-Normalized Source EUI": "the weather-normalized source energy intensity (kBtu/Sq. Ft.) for the current 12-month period"

Have you looked at any of the energy audit or commissioning credits yet? There might be some use of your building out of the normal for "educational" type buildings -- perhaps a lot of computing energy, or educational laboratory spaces?

I am not sure about international projects with regard to the EAp2 Case 2 calculator unfortunately. Two things I would suggest looking into however: - What is the baseline or median EUI against which you are comparing. In many cases, when you put "Other" space-type into Portfolio Manager, you are given a baseline or median EUI around 94.0, whereas the off-line LEED calculator will generate a reference EUI based on the square footage of each space you have: classroom, office, etc. - If you are trying to "self-normalize" your EUI based on occupancy or other weather data you have, there is an EPA document entitled "Guidance for Normalizing Environmental Performance Results" from 2004 that outlines options for normalizing other operating characteristics. Hope this helps, I apologize for not having more information regarding international projects.

Stefanie, I suggest reading the following to better understand the energy benchmarking methodology of Energy Star - Portfolio Manager Overview- Technical Descriptions for Models Used in the Rating System This document provides detailed information on the methodologies used to create the energy performance ratings including details on rating objectives, regression techniques, and the steps applied to compute a rating. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/General_Overview_tech_methodology.pdf?12be-df22 http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/k12school_tech_desc.pdf?c1c7-3b93 You could try getting in touch with the people who worked on the Intelligent Energy Europe project Energy Performance Assessment of Existing Non-Residential Buildings for a benchmark building http://www.epa-nr.org/22.html the report on Finland can be found at the link provided.

Stefanie, Energy Star accounts for differences in weather via HDD and CDD. "HDD and CDD are common measures that reflect the heating and cooling requirement of a building, relative to the average temperature. These variables are included in the EPA regression analysis. By including these variables in the regression analysis, EPA can estimate adjustments to reflect the typical relationship between HDD and energy intensity and between CDD and energy intensity. In most rating models, HDD and CDD are determined to have statistically significant impacts on energy use. Therefore, they are included and adjusted for in EPA ratings." While using Energy Star to benchmark the energy performance of buildings isn't perfect; it is currently the most robust and statistically valid method I've seen. If you look through the data at the link I sent and compare it to CBECS you'll understand.

Stefanie, If you want to compare your building to the education buildings listed in EPA-NR Survey: National context and need for instruments May 2005 (I'm not sure how or what this number includes; see page 3) the average Finnish education building uses 229 kWhm2.

Stefanie, You might try Timo Rintala at the Finland GBC who is a member of the LEED International Roundtable and is trying to solve these sorts of issues. If you manage to find a good source of EU wide building energy usage information please post a link to it.

Stefanie, Eric, This is always such a complex aspect for LEED for Existing Buildings projects not eligible for the conventional Energy Star score (or National Energy Performance Rating). Fortunately, it is to a project's own benefit to understand the best possible benchmark with which to compare your building. In my minimal international project experience, I can offer the two notes below: - Regarding the space type you have: if 70% of your space type is "Education", you should also include the gross square footage for any "ancillary support areas" (storage, admin, lobby, office, etc) under the "Education" space type. You should split other space types out only if they do not directly support the Education function, or if there is at least a 10% difference in operating hours in any enclosed spaces. - For international projects, the two compliance paths for this prerequisite are listed in the LEED ACP (or Alternative Compliance Paths for Projects Outside the US): 1 - Benchmark against any national energy data (if available) 2 - Compile source energy data for at least three comparable buildings, and demonstrate energy efficiency at least 19% better than this baseline 3 - there exists a pilot credit called "Energy Jumpstart" that allows you to create an energy baseline using 5 years historical data, against which you must demonstrate energy efficiency improvements. Hope this helps, and please feel free to email me (ravi@usgbc-sd.org) for any clarifications or anything. Seems like Eric is also a great resource for international work as well.