[Equest-users] [Bldg-sim] LEED v3 CS ACP calculator penalizing existing buildings?
Jones, Christopher via Equest-users
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Fri Jun 10 05:43:17 PDT 2016
Nick,
I am interested in your statement that kitchen equipment can be a "gold-mine". In my somewhat limited experience with kitchen equipment, it is difficult to get performance data for the specified equipment and I typically end up using the same loads in the proposed and baseline models.
[cid:image003.png at 01D09C46.E75BA0D0]
Christopher Jones, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer
WSP Canada Inc.
2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2300
Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
T +1 416-644-4226
F +1 416-487-9766
C +1 416-697-0056
www.wspgroup.com<http://www.wspgroup.com/>
From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of via Bldg-sim
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 11:16 AM
To: jhansen at ghtltd.com
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED v3 CS ACP calculator penalizing existing buildings?
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
[cid:image001.png at 01D189AB.58634A10]
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<mailto: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/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20160610/f0afcb73/attachment-0005.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6574 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20160610/f0afcb73/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7893 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20160610/f0afcb73/attachment-0011.png>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list