Evaluation of Building Energy Performance Rating Methods ASHRAE TRP-1286 Initial Results

1. 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 Documents

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