[Bldg-sim] LEED v3 CS ACP calculator penalizing existing buildings?

Thu Jun 9 08:16:09 PDT 2016

Hi James,

I've executed (and also deliberately avoided for strategic reasons) this
ACP a few times over for CS projects under LEED v3.  

I think you know this, but it may bear repeating for newer subscribers.
Historically, LEED-specific queries & discussions have been quite
popular/welcome here at onebuilding, and in this forum particularly
[bldg-sim]!  I understand GBCI does keep a watchful eye out for related
discussions here (and will occasionally take direct actions in
response), but they do not as a general rule actively participate.  I
reckon this is primarily due to their focus/ties around the LEED user
forum, as a means of consolidating what's "official."  In any case, I
think you're going to reach a unique spread of expertise here with "in
the trenches" experience/perspectives covering various simulation
platforms, so please don't feel averse to cross-posting.  That said,
treat all of the following as "end-user" advice (not necessarily
endorsed by those calling the shots).

I could be wrong, but I think there's some simple logic at play here
that lends credence to a single ACP threshold column, based on the "new"
thresholds:

All else being equal:  When you are doing a CS renovation project (as
compared with new construction, in LEED terms), you have a couple "soft"
advantages for determining the "directly controlled" percentage, which
may explain why there isn't a separate sliding scale:

1.       Relative to NC, you have an added potential for more
"know-able" tenant-controlled loads in an existing, occupied/tenanted
facility that can be definable/claimed in determining your "owner
influence-able" percentage.  This in my experience requires some extra
legwork to at minimum seek out tenant construction docs through the
developer.  Eyes on the ground (with a camera & notepad) may be a
worthwhile venture in some cases to help document & find the variety of
loads that are truly outside the developers control. 

2.       Relative to NC, & depending upon renovation scope, you may be
able to draw a tighter line with regard "directly controllable" loads
(due to project boundary or budget/scope), and in turn document a lower
percentage of "directly controlled energy cost" by accounting for
existing "core" loads your project can't touch.  For example, if your
project involves upgrading/replacing core HVAC, you definitely cannot
claim those energies as outside the "controllable" sum, but if the
budget/scope will not allow for replacing the existing
escalators/elevators, you may be able to include those.  In another
sense, your renovation project may be adding square footage within the
50% threshold, thereby not triggering the "NC" flag for LEED, but again
leaving other existing loads typically considered "Core" outside of the
touchable scope (spatial project boundary).

If GBCI were to someday refute/shoot-down the above points in an
official capacity, then I'd totally agree the burden would be on them to
come up with a separate "ACP-adjusted" scale for renovation projects.

Also some related general tips:  When opting to leverage the ACP (it
doesn't always fit for every CS project), be sure you're seeking out and
accounting for any of the following that may apply:

-          Tenant Lighting

-          Tenant plug loads 

o   Be careful to document "Actual" plug loads if simultaneously
pursuing reduced plug loads via exceptional calculation. 

o   Consider pursuing documenting "Actual" plug loads even if not trying
to claim exceptional savings, if a known tenant would clearly exceed
typical W/ft2 entries (i.e. a Kinko's print shop or a tanning salon is
involved).

-          Other Tenant process loads

o   Tenant IT/data room server equipment

o   Cafeterias/Kitchens within the development/building are commonly a
"gold mine" under the ACP

o   Tenant-specific security head-end equipment can occasionally be
substantial enough to seek out and include as well.

-          Tenant process-related supplemental space conditioning (where
not delivered by the developer).   There's a fine line to walk here (one
of the examples in the ACP Instructions tab speaks to tenant HVAC in a
general/broad case), but I think it's very appropriate/fair in some
cases to account for specific tenant HVAC loads which are totally
outside the influence of a CS owner/developer.  Examples that come to
mind may include walk-in freezers for kitchens & supplemental cooling
systems for tenant-process-heavy spaces (like printer/server rooms).  No
amount of developer envelope/HVAC influence will prevent tenants who
need such extra conditioning (at whatever efficiency) from putting those
loads on the meter.

~Nick

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------

Nick Caton, P.E.

  Senior Energy Engineer
  Energy and Sustainability Services
  North America Operations
  Schneider Electric

D  913.564.6361 
M  785.410.3317 
E  nicholas.caton at schneider-electric.com
<mailto:nicholas.caton at schneider-electric.com> 
F  913.564.6380

15200 Santa Fe Trail Drive
Suite 204
Lenexa, KS 66219
United States

From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf
Of James Hansen via Bldg-sim
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:47 PM
To: BLDG-SIM
Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED v3 CS ACP calculator penalizing existing
buildings?

Sorry to post a LEED-related question, but I thought someone might have
run into this in the past for EAp2 modeling using the developer control
alternative compliance path calculator.

I posted this same question on LEEDUSER but thought I'd get more
responses from the modeling community here!

I've done a number of Core and Shell models before, and always use the
ACP calculator.  However, something that I've noticed before but never
understood is why the Revised Point threshold column is a single column
and NOT separate revised thresholds for New and Existing.  As an
example:  In a current project, I have a developer control percentage of
47%.  It says that any savings over 13.8% gets you 6 pts (see chart
below).  This is a nice drop from the 18% required for a non-ACP path to
get 6 pts for new construction projects.  However, the non-ACP path for
6pts requires a renovation project to have 14%.  In other words, the ACP
only lowers the 6 pt threshold from 14% to 13.8% for renovations.  Why
does this happen?  Is it just something you have to live with for
renovations?  Or is there a way you can pro-rate this to be valid for
existing building renovations?  Thanks!

Enter the Percent of Energy Cost Influenced or Directly Controlled by CS
Owner/Developer: 

47.0%

Standard Compliance Path
Savings as a Percent of Core & Shell Building Load

Alternative Compliance Path - Revised Point thresholds based on Percent
of Energy Cost influenced by Developer and Percent New Construction
versus Major Renovation

Points

New

Renovation

Prereq

10.0%

5.0%

6.3%

3

12.0%

8.0%

10.0%

4

14.0%

10.0%

11.3%

5

16.0%

12.0%

12.5%

6

18.0%

14.0%

13.8%

7

20.0%

16.0%

15.0%

8

22.0%

18.0%

16.3%

9

24.0%

20.0%

17.5%

10

26.0%

22.0%

18.8%

11

28.0%

24.0%

20.1%

12

30.0%

26.0%

21.3%

13

32.0%

28.0%

22.6%

14

34.0%

30.0%

23.8%

15

36.0%

32.0%

25.1%

16

38.0%

34.0%

26.3%

17

40.0%

36.0%

27.6%

18

42.0%

38.0%

28.8%

19

44.0%

40.0%

30.1%

20

46.0%

42.0%

31.3%

21

48.0%

44.0%

32.6%

GHT Limited

James Hansen, PE, LEED AP, BEMP

Principal

1110 N. Glebe Road, Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201

703.338.5754 (direct/cell)

________________________________

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the
property of GHT Limited. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to ght at ghtltd.com,
and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
attachments. Thank you. 
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
______________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20160609/2c2db214/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7893 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20160609/2c2db214/attachment-0003.png>