[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal most LEED points - follow the lead

[Ellis, David]

It's like herding cats.

Our practice is heavily involved with Government projects, all of which need to comply with the various laws (EPACT and EISA) and Executive Orders that drive building energy savings performance in addition to project specific performance within the LEED rating system.

It is an interesting analysis process, as we have to evaluate energy (kBtu) vs. cost (utility) vs. fossil fuel use (FFU) (including utility grid impacts) savings, all with the goal of meeting minimum performance goals of 30% for EPACT (a 90.1-2004 baseline, which can be increased on an agency/department basis, as in one case has been raised to 50% energy savings compared to a 90.1-2007 baseline), minimum 10% (which usually ends up 30% or higher) for LEED, and a minimum 55% FFU reduction for EISA (ratcheted up to 100% avoidance by 2030).

With the singular exception of the EISA FFU requirement, all measures to achieve stated goals must be proven Life Cycle Cost (LCC) effective or compliance can be waived.

While a DOE proposed EISA ruling, if promulgated, pushes off the EISA FFU reduction requirement for at least one year, this one law (if unaltered, by law or interpretive rule) is the heavy hitter as it requires either a substantial change in our utility grid system (to eliminate fossil fuels) or forces the project to be off the grid (or forces the Agency or Department head to officially ask for a waiver for non-compliance).

Why do I bring all of this up?

If USGBC is pursuing the goal of seeking energy savings (kBtu) in addition to utility savings (and they can be at cross purposes, as with thermal storage), then shouldn't it also seek to reduce greenhouse gases, as in fossil fuel reduction? A balance could be sought, as an example consider that a tri-generation process can produce less greenhouse gases compared to an open-loop heat pump approach given the fossil fuel type used by the electric utility provider.

Of course, to be technically correct, there are the greenhouse and environmental impacts to be considered with natural gas fracking (also with coal mining and off-shore drilling).

I'm sure there are plans for expansion of our nuclear power generation on the grid, with its own inherent concerns.

Deep geothermal, if available, does seem to offer the best promise for a 24 hour supply source.  Solar, hydronic and PV just doesn't seem to be LCC effective except for the most expensive utility rate structures.


David Ellis
PE (VA, MD, DC)
CEM, LEED AP

ENERGY DESIGN SOLUTIONS
ENERGY SERVICES MANAGER





HDRArchitecture.com<http://hdrarchitecture.com/>

703.647.7735 | c+txt 703.343.6758
HDR Architecture, Inc. | 1101 King Street, Suite 400 | Alexandria, VA 22314



From: Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:30 PM
To: Aleka Pappas
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best designdoesn'tequalmost LEED points

It's interesting that just as we are having this discussion, the budget for CBECS is going away: http://blog.bepinfo.com/2011/05/death-knell-for-energy-star-building.html. So even one less source of EUI information for people to use. Ironic!
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Aleka Pappas <apappas at group14eng.com<mailto:apappas at group14eng.com>> wrote:
I did some pre-RFP modeling for Denver Housing Authority to try to help them develop realistic & useful energy metric design goals for a recent project.  We ended up setting a percent energy cost saving goal (ie LEED) along with a site lbs CO2 emissions/ SF goal for the design.  We started out with a kBtu/ SF metric, but weren't happy with the way this quantified environmental impact in Colorado.  This is because most of our electricity comes from coal and it's CO2 intensive relative to natural gas, but looks better than natural gas when looking at site kBtu/ SF.  It's interesting how this will change design decisions compared to just looking at energy cost savings relative to the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline; it's much easier to hit 50% savings with an all electric building, but CO2 emissions go up.
The metrics DHA ended up included in their RFP came out of modeling the actual building type in the actual location of the project, so we were comfortable with them being reasonable design goals for the 'as-designed' building.  We also made sure that people understood the difference between 'as-designed' modeling and 'operational' building energy use.  It was great to work with a really progressive client who gets it and wanted to look at these details closely.
Aleka Pappas
Building Energy Engineer

GROUP14 ENGINEERING, INC.
Inspiring better buildings.
1325 E. 16th Ave, Denver, CO 80218
Direct: 720.221.1082<tel:720.221.1082>/ Main: 303.861.2070<tel:303.861.2070>/Fax: 303.830.2016<tel:303.830.2016>
www.group14eng.com<http://www.group14eng.com>

Group14 Engineering offers building energy optimization, LEED coordination, commissioning, energy audits, LEED EBOM, and greenhouse gas analysis.

On 5/16/2011 10:51 AM, Goldwasser, David wrote:

One variation I was considering to EUI was to look at Kbtu per annual occupant hour vs. Kbtu per area. This came about when I wanted know how to evaluate some operational alternatives such as extending the hours of operation for a facility, or looking at an office running with a rotating staff all working 4x10 hour days a week vs. a smaller static staff in the same building working 5x8 hour days a week. Kbtu/sf2 alone didn't help here, but looking at Kbtu per annual occupant hour did.



Extending operational hours will clearly increase your Kbtu/ft2 (EUI) but the question I wanted to answer is if those extra occupant hours come at a lower energy impact per occupant hour than the baseline case. "Kbtu/ annual occupant hour" addressed this. Is there a similar metric that anyone else is using?



David



--

David Goldwasser, LEED AP

National Renewable Energy Laboratory









-----Original Message-----

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> [mailto:bldg-sim-

bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Marcus Sheffer

Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:16 AM

To: 'Paul Riemer'; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>

Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best designdoesn'tequalmost LEED

points



Paul,



The next version of LEED will approach a more standardized metric (EUI Source

Energy) but still include cost as a metric as well.  For those who feel

strongly that only actual energy use should be used for green building

certification the LEED EBOM methodologies will be allowed into LEED BD+C

projects.



USGBC is trying hard to lead us to that better way.  If you know the better

way please share.



Marcus Sheffer

Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company

1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365

717-292-2636<tel:717-292-2636>, sheffer at sevengroup.com<mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>

www.sevengroup.com<http://www.sevengroup.com>



_______________________________________________

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<mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>

_______________________________________________
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<mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>



--
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110516/7f78ad23/attachment-0002.htm>