evaluation of building energy performance rating methods ashrae trp-1286 initial results jason...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of Building Energy Performance Rating Methods
ASHRAE TRP-1286 Initial Results
Jason Glazer, P.E.
GARD Analytics
January 2006
2
Project Overview
• Today’s presentation– Overview of many rating methods– In depth evaluation of five methods
• Work in progress– Gathered data for 29 test buildings– Test five methods with building data– Recommendations
3
Overview of Many Methods
• Formal literature search
• Internet search– building benchmark
– building energy benchmark
– building energy rating
– building energy metric
– Building Energy Measure OR Rank OR Gauge OR Grade
– Building Energy Criteria OR Classification OR Merit
– Building Energy Valuation OR Mark OR Yardstick
– Building Energy Target OR Score
4
Overview Results
• 88 protocols initially uncovered– 47 commercial (focus)– 31 residential
• Categorization applied– Use of, or reference to, ASHRAE products– Range of approach– Range of applicable building types– Number of users (subjective)
5
ASHRAE Referenced• Standard 29-1988 – Methods of Testing Automatic Ice Makers• Standard 52.1-1992 – Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for
Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter
• Standard 52.2-1999 – Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size
• Standard 55-1992 – Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy
• Standard 62-2001 – Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality• Standard 90.1-2001 – Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings• Standard 117-2002 – Method of Testing Closed Refrigerators• Standard 129-1997 – Measuring Air Change Effectiveness• Guideline 1-1996 – The HVAC Commissioning Process (G-1)• Guideline 4-1993 – Preparation of Operating and Maintenance
Documentation for Building Systems (G-4)• ASHRAE Handbook – Fundamentals (HOF)
6
Use of ASHRAE DocumentsProtocol Standards Guidelines HOF
29 52.1 52.2 55 62 90.1 117 129 G-1 G-4
LEED x x x x (99) x x
LEED-EB x x x x (99) x x
G/Rated - Portland LEED x x x x (99) x x
LEED™ Supplement for King County
x x x x (99) x x
E-Benchmark x x x x x x
Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide
x x x(89) x (89) x x x
High Performance Building Guidelines
x (95) x(89) x x x
EnergyStar Label for Buildings
x x x(99)
GBTool x x
Numbers in parenthesis are earlier versions of these documents where the number indicates the year.
7
Approaches Used
• Points with prerequisites and reference building simulation
• Comparison with building simulations
• Placement within statistical distribution shown graphically or by score
• Direct comparison of multiple buildings to each other
8
Range of Buildings
• One specific building type (laboratories)• All building types using national public
database of buildings • Subset of building types using specific
databases or statistical model for each building type
• Common: education, healthcare, hotel, office, retail
• Broad categories or several subcategories
9
In-depth Evaluation• Selected by
– Level of adoption– Approach used– Customer focus
• LEED-NC/LEED-EB – USGBC• EnergyStar for Buildings – US EPA• BREEAM – UK BRE• ARCH/CALARCH - LBNL• EnergyPrism Benchmark – Commercial
10
Comparisons• Scope of application
• Empirical basis
• Input requirements
• Output and transparency
• Part of certification process
• Effort and expense
• Influences design or retrofit
11
Scope of Application – Building Type
• Any building– LEED-NC– Arch/Cal-Arch– EnergyPrism
• Subset of Buildings– LEED-EB– BREEAM– ENERGY STAR Label for Buildings
12
Scope of Application - Geography
• U.S. – LEED, ENERGY STAR, EnergyPrism, Arch
• California– Cal-Arch
• Global– BREEAM
13
Scope of Application – Building Size
• Some have specific building size range
• Certification costs discourage small buildings
14
Empirical Basis - Source
• CBECS – US DOE/EIA– Arch, ENERGY STAR, Energy Prism, LEED-EB
• California proprietary database– Cal-Arch
• Private databases– ENERGY STAR (Hospitals, Hotels)
• No empirical basis– LEED-NC - simulations with 90.1 baseline– BREEAM – ECON 19 comparison
15
Input Requirements
• Building area and annual energy usage– Arch and Cal-Arch
• Area by space type, monthly energy usage – ENERGY STAR Label for Buildings
• Building area, annual energy use, end-use– EnergyPrism
• Many inputs for each point sought– BREEAM, LEED
16
Output and Transparency – LEED and BREEAM
• Several specific grade levels provide simple recognition by others– BREEAM: Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent– LEED: Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum
• Points allow cafeteria style selection of measures
• Lower resolution - not appropriate for multi-building comparisons
• More than energy: environmental
17
Output and Transparency – ENERGY STAR
• Number between 0 to 100 with a specific threshold
• Documentation aimed at analyst
• Threshold of 75 provides user understanding if improvement is warranted
18
Cal-Arch Output Example
Interpretation needed. No threshold.
19
EnergyPrism Output Example
• Like appliance energy label
• No threshold
• Unknown distribution
20
Part of Certification Process
• ENERGY STAR, BREEAM, LEED– Recognition to building– Third party gives legitimacy– Widely recognized– Adequate lighting, ventilation, comfort– Utility or government incentives– Leveraged by other organizations
21
Effort and Expense
• No cost – an hour to self-assess– ENERGY STAR, EnergyPrism, Arch/Cal-
Arch– 2623 ENERGY STAR certified (Jan 2006)
• With cost – multi-month process– BREEAM, LEED– 359 LEED certified (Nov 2005)
22
Influences Design or Retrofit
• Point systems for design– LEED-NC and BREEAM– Directly influence design– Incorporate with the design process
• Consumption based protocols– ENERGY STAR, EnergyPrism, Arch/Cal-Arch– Indirect influence on design– May spur energy oriented retrofits– Do not indicate why building performing poorly– Added risk trying to meet threshold
23
Next Steps
• Data from actual buildings– Office, K-12 schools, hospital, lodging
• Test methods – Include test cases for major inputs
• Prepare recommendations for future rating methods
24
Questions