Hydrogen Production

1. I don't think you need to do so. You can do the calculations separately as this is a process load. I am assuming that the process does not impact the heating/cooling of the spaces in which the hydrogen is produced. If it does then you would need to place a load within that space.
2. It is related to energy use and is not eligible for an ID credit.
3. Sure I don't see why not.

Curious about the source of the hydrogen. Natural gas? Solar?

About your comment #1, Marcus. The USGBC has no definitive rules regarding how special process loads should be calculated. You are left to your own to figure out a reasonable and consistent method. Reasonable meaning it makes sense. Consistent meaning to not change basic assumption between the basecase and proposed model cases—schedules of operation, and similar.

The above said, I found that on one should-have-been Platinum project, that the owner decided not to complete certification on because of onerous demands by the LEED reviewer. The reviewer of that project made hard process load calculation requirements and failed to provide justification for—one energy analyst’s method vs. another’s. The reviewer was allowed to have the final say because no one at the USGBC-GBCI understood how process loads should be determined.

On other projects I found that the reviewers didn't provide a single comment about process loads at all. Only on the above non-Platinum project did I ever run into a problem, which has always made me wonder why, and how, the USGBC allowed the reviewer to make unreasonable demands and prevent certification of that project.

FYI should-have been Platinum project: This is that odd project—an aquarium veterinary building with all major process loads outside the building—where the reviewer demanded comparison with an energy use "survey" that they refused to identify, and demanded a different schedule of operation—the schedule used was conservative, with greater hours of operation, and thereby higher loads generated—, and demanded we get signed letters from engineers of similar "local" projects—the closest aquariums more than 300 miles away—stating that the systems designer's (and energy analyst) basecase was standard, normal practice, efficiency. I can't image any engineer writing such a letter because it makes the engineer essentially state the firm they were writing the letter for can provide a better, cost-savings, design. I personally, would never ask any engineering firm to write such a letter.

I certainly agree that USGBC has not provided clear guidance to project teams regarding process loads. When I was on the EA TAG I advocated for publishing clearer guidance but it did not happen. The guidance provided in the stock language is often not helpful for reasons you cite. There is too much reviewer discretion on this issue because that is how the system is set up to evaluate it. Not right IMO but that is what we have.

There is no real reason for the USGBC to have the system in place they have for years. It can be changed, and it changes all the time. The basic rules for the review system come from the USGBC's LEED Department—which is, or was?, run by Brendan Owens. The GBCI is tasked to enforce the system whether they like the rules or not.

On difficult projects I have recommended that owners hire an energy expert, such as yourself. But no matter how qualified the expert is they often experience grief getting through a LEED review. If your analysis method is accepted by one LEED Reviewer, and you use it again with success, a different LEED Reviewer might experience heartburn over the previously accepted method.

I experienced the above LEED reviewer peer disagreement for a group of nine similar projects for a single owner. Eight projects were documented using and identically process for "community" renewable energy shared by all of the projects. The ninth project went to a different reviewer who rejected the documentation method that was used just a few months prior for eight projects. Nothing could be done except meet the demands of the second reviewer using that person's preferred renewable energy allocation method. I ended up with an Excel table, one I previously created, listing all nine projects, and "tweaking" the math but only for the final project. I couldn't change the math for the projects that were already LEED certified. Unfortunately, this is what the LEED Department's rules can force to happen on projects; different rules for the same analysis method. There was no real difference in the overall end result doing math in a single spreadsheet two different ways. Out of 5,000,000 kWh to allocate the method difference was on the order of only a few allocated kWh between the original submittal, and forced redo.

I feel your pain.

Did you request a call with the reviewer? Often in complex situations that can be a useful way to resolve these issues.

Marcus, we were not allowed to discuss the issue with the reviewer. We were never told who it was, but we know the reviewer used an outside expert to comment on the process loads. The analyst thought the preliminary review comments required a simple explanation—that the method used resulted in greater energy use and lower percentage savings, and confirming the schedules were consistent—, and making some adjustments to the energy calculations. It was only with the final review that demands for surveys, letters, and references to a mystery existing survey were made by the reviewer.

I discussed these new demands as being onerous and unfair—should occur with the preliminary review—with Peter Templeton. He told me there was nothing the GBCI could do because of some review rule imposed on them by the USGBC. Peter also spoke with the owner of the project—they previously completed Platinum for a different project—to discuss with her why the only option was to respond to the reviewers demands. She decided immediately to drop out of LEED altogether. Three future Platinum projects were dropped, as well as following LEED methods for all of their upgrade work. This owner (VP at the aquarium) implemented many non-LEED sustainability processes, including cafeteria processes and food sold to visitors. She is a true environmentalist, and for the USGBC to lose here prior hardcore support for LEED was truly amazing.