See all forum discussions about NC-2009 EAc6
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 EAc6 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 EAc6
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 EAc6»
FAQs about EAc6 :

The owner has purchased RECs for a percentage of energy use of its whole portfolio of buildings, or campus. Can we earn this credit for a single LEED building with this purchase?

We plan on pursuing this credit only if we need to do so to meet our certification target, i.e. if another credit we are counting on gets rejected. How late can we apply for this credit?

The owner purchases RECs based on an earlier prediction, but our energy model is now showing that we are just a little short of the credit threshold. What should we do?

Our project is outside the U.S. We would like to earn this credit by purchasing RECs, but there are no Green-e options available here. It looks like most Green-e certified power comes from the U.S. What should we do?

We are pursuing this credit outside the U.S., and the owner wants to know if we can buy green power through a provider in our country that is not Green-e certified. We started comparing our national standard to Green-e and quickly found an area where the

Our project will be net-zero energy, i.e. will produce as much or more power than it consumes. Can we earn this credit?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 EAc6:Green power

Warning for net-zero projects.

The GBCI has decided that net-zero projects must buy additional EAc6 green power if the actual energy use for two-years post-occupancy does not match the GBCI approved results from EAc1/EAc2. (Refer to LI 10219 regarding the net-zero case.) Projects would be better off claiming 99.9% energy cost reduction than trying to claim net-zero.

1
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Tue, 08/27/2013 - 13:44

Thanks for pointing that one out. I think you are right that projects would be better off claiming less than 100%. This Interpretation makes no sense on so many levels. It encourages (in some cases forces) projects to play games with their results to avoid having to follow these requirements. It requires projects to buy potentially expensive utility provided green power if available. If no local green power is available it requires projects to reconcile and buy RECs two years after occupancy which cannot be enforced. We are working on two net zero projects for LBC. The estimates of energy consumption and renewable production current show them to be better than net zero. This paperwork exercise should not force the project to buy sometimes expensive green power from their utility. In our area they charge $0.025/kWh extra on top of the regular electric rate compared to RECs which are a small fraction of that cost. To avoid this situation I will be forced to make up different values when submitting our documentation for LEED. It makes no sense to make things harder for net-zero projects by adding requirements on them that do not exist for other projects. Grid-tied, net-zero projects will almost always feed renewable power back into the grid at some point during the year. This makes them a grid-source renewable in alignment with the credit intent so they should count for EAc6 without any further restrictions. It is pretty clear that the requirements in this Interpretation were not thought through. Gotta wonder where this stuff comes from sometimes?
Profile picture for user GreenKat
Kathryn West
LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Green Globes Professional
JLL
LEEDuser Basic Member
112 thumbs up

Tue, 08/27/2013 - 14:14

weird. good to know...

Tue, 08/27/2013 - 15:04

I have six net-zero cost and energy use projects under review with the same LI interpretation problem. The GBCI reviewer clarified the two-year post-occupancy performance requirements--linked to the two-year requirement for EAc6. The projects are for an owner who I know won't be able to provide a purchase commitment letter. They are not authorized to spend future funds on the projects. I asked the GBCI if I would be allowed to retract the EAc1/EAc2 claims to be just less than 100% cost reduction. That is the only solution that gets the owner (school construction department), and me off the LEED-hook after the final review. Who wants a two-year commitment with an unknown penalty imposed on their projects? Claiming net-zero for LEED is simply not worth it. But, I will say that the renewables allocated to each project will always remain at net-zero. The EAc2 energy deducted will be for LEED purposes only. The owner could still make their own, non-LEED related, net-zero energy cost and use claim.

Wed, 08/28/2013 - 00:38

Okay, the GBCI is forced to interpret LI 10219 the way they are told to interpret it. The assumption is that the EA TAG thought through exactly what they wanted a net-zero building to do, pay a penalty for not performing as expected. There is nothing the GBCI-side of the USGBC can do. They cannot write rules, that can only enforce them. So, the only solution is to claim less than 100% energy-cost reduction to avoid the extra hoops LI 10219 tries to impose. Suffice to say, the LEED development-side of the USGBC is anti-net-zero buildings. Almost, but not quite, net-zero buildings appear to have the easiest path to maximize LEED claims. I would not waste my time with such a silly ruling, but I also cannot leave five projects one or two points short of LEED Platinum. That is what I am facing, failing by just a little bit to earn my keep as a LEED consultant. Ugh, is all I can say.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.