[Bldg-sim] Defining Utility rates - proposed building different than reference building?

Matutinovic, Luka LMatutinovic at halsall.com
Wed Sep 19 14:08:29 PDT 2012


Frederic,

This is an interesting scenario. It seems that the utility has decided to incetivize buildings with a high base-to-peak ratio. So if you have a high peak, most of the time the actual demand will be above 65% of the peak, and no penalty is incurred. Buildings with a low base-to-peak ratio will be below 65% more often and have to pay. Makes good sense from a utility perspective, since a flat demand profile means fewer utility plants that must be built and kept idling when demand is low. 

I'm not sure how the CaGBC would treat this case. At first glance, the proposed building is benefiting from utility pricing rules. If this building was built elsewhere, it would not benefit from this utility structure. So your LEED points shouldn't take this demand penalty into account. In some sense this is similar to campus buildings which might pay a discount campus DES rate (which is not allowed under DES rules to ensure fair comparisons).

But on the other hand, LEED cares about making smart decisions within the regional context, so you could argue that your proposed design should be rewarded if it can take advantage of this regional utility structure. You could argue that your design provides a wider benefit since it helps the utility smooth-out the demand profile, which is clearly one of the utility's goals and a benefit to the wider grid. 

My recommendation would be to submit a CIR or discuss this with a CaGBC peer reviewer (if you are considering engaging one for a 3rd party review). If you can afford to leave these cost savings on the table, maybe they can qualify as an innovation point (for regional priority). My gut feel is that the demand penalty would not be eligible toward LEED points.

Cheers,

Luka Matutinovic, P.Eng., LEED® AP BD+C
Halsall Associates
Tel: 416.644.0649 • Toll Free: 1.888.425.7255 x 317 •  www.halsall.com
Vancouver • Calgary • Sudbury  • Burlington • Toronto • Ottawa • Dubai
Best Workplaces in Canada, Six Consecutive Years: 2007 - 2012
___________________________
A Parsons Brinckerhoff Company
 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail


-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Genest, Frederic
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:30 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Defining Utility rates - proposed building different than reference building?

Hello everyone.

A quick question for you.

We're modeling a building to evaluate its performance for LEED Canada-CS, using EE4/MNECB as the modeling tool.

My question is whether or not if we should/need to define different utility rates for the proposed building and the reference building. Is this allowed?

The motivation for this is because the electrical utility rate for our region is set with a minimum kW to pay each month, which is equal to 65% of the max demand over a period of 12 months. So, if a given monthly kW demand is lower than that minimum, you pay a "penalty" for un-demanded kW.

Since both proposed and reference buildings have a different monthly demand profile, the min kW to pay, and the total "penalty", would differ. This influences the total energy costs for both building, and the % energy savings used to evaluate the LEED points.

So, can we set different rates, defined to match the actual utility demand of each case? My guess is yes, but I want to check...

Thanks.

Frederic Genest, P.Eng.
Pageau Morel.
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list