Project Background Our project is one building in a much larger conglomeration of buildings that have been constructed over the last 100 years. The building that we are currently working on LEED EB Certification had a very unique manufacturing process in it that made the chemical "furfural" out of oat byproducts. This process was removed from the building approximately 5 years ago and the building has been used for general storage since then. Our project is to renovate the existing building structure and install a new oat cleaning process line. Question The new Cleaning House #3 process is state of the art and incorporates high efficiency equipment and links the process equipment with the building systems to improve efficiency. Our difficulty is developing a base line for comparing the renovated building and new process to, as required in EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1. We would like to use the existing Cleaning House #2 which is located in the same manufacturing facility and is a similar process to the new Cleaning House #3 without the upgraded efficiencies, thereby making it an excellent indicator of what the energy usage would be if it wasn\'t built utilizing sustainable principles as the baseline model. Would you find this an acceptable approach for establishing a baseline for comparison? Assuming our baseline proposal is acceptable we would also like to make the comparison based on a cost per pound of product which includes all energy used in the building and the process, because the existing Cleaning House #2 does not have separate metering systems.
The baseline proposal of using the existing Cleaning House #2 as the Facility Historical Average Energy Use Baseline would provide a valid and acceptable energy use comparison to the Cleaning House #3. It would not be acceptable to make the comparison based on an energy cost basis per pound of product. But it would be acceptable to make the comparison based on an energy consumption basis per pound of product which includes all energy used in the building and the processes. In order to verify the validity of the comparison, the submittal documentation must include a detailed narrative that verifies that the Cleaning House #2 employs a similar process to the Cleaning House #3. The narrative must also include a description of the non-process building space in each building showing that non-process building spaces are similar in size and usage. The following are minimum requirements for this LEED-EB v2.0 EAp2 Alternative Calculation Method alternative compliance path: 1. A minimum of three months of metered performance period energy consumption data must be provided at the individual building level for Cleaning House #3. 2. A Facility Historical Average Energy Use Baseline must be determined at the individual building level for Cleaning House #2. This should be based on the average of 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data within 6 years of the beginning of the LEED-EB performance period (See LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition page 183, Step 1). 3. The Cleaning House #3 Performance Period EUI should be calculated using the methodology described in the LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition page 184, Step 2. 4. Once the Cleaning House #2 Historical Average EUI baseline and Cleaning House #3 Performance Period EUI have been determined, the EAp2 Alternative Calculation Method Option A calculation guidelines should be followed as documented in the LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition pages 184-186. 5. Because the proposed approach is modeled after the Alternative Calculation Method Option A, a maximum of five LEED-EBv2.0 EAc1 points would only be available to the LEED-EB Applicant using this methodology. Applicable Internationally.