APPNDX05-USGBC-CHP-Guidance-for-FTW-Project-AM_5.pdf

Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 – Design & Construction

Pertains to all Building Design & Construction and Interior Design & Construction LEED v2.0 through v2009 Rating Systems

(i.e., New Construction, Schools, Core & Shell, Commercial Interiors, Retail for New Construction, Retail for Commercial Interiors, and Healthcare)

(August 13, 2010)

This document is USGBC’s second (v2.0) major release of guidance for district or campus thermal energy in LEED, and is a unified set of guidance comprising the following:

• An update to the original Version 1.0 guidance released May 2008 for LEED v2.x

• The initial release of formal guidance for LEED v2009

EIE326 - APPNDX 05

distribution equipment that have changed as a result of the additions shall be commissioned in accordance with the requirements of EAc3 for the relevant LEED rating system for the project.

A DES greater than three years old and with no substantial new equipment additions is considered to be “existing” and is to be commissioned in accordance with the requirements of LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance v2008 EA Credit 2.2 or 2.3.

2.4 Energy Performance (EAp2 & EAc1)

All downstream equipment is always included in the scope of EAp2 and EAc1. Such equipment includes heat exchangers, steam pressure reduction stations, pumps, valves, pipes, building electrical services, and controls. Upstream equipment may be included or excluded depending on the compliance path the project team uses.

All LEED v2.x projects registered after 06/27/2007 are required to earn a minimum of two points under EA Credit 1 for LEED certification. Note that for LEED v2009 USGBC folded this level of performance into EAp2, so the 2-point minimum in EAc1 does not apply.

Both EAp2 and EAc1 offer prescriptive and performance compliance paths, and for DES projects compliance is shown for both EAp2 and EAc1 using similar techniques.

Prescriptive paths – project teams using any prescriptive path either to document compliance with EAp2 or to document points under EAc1 shall include or exclude effects of upstream DES equipment as specified in the applicable reference standard listed in the LEED Rating System. If the reference standard does not specify either approach, the upstream effects shall be excluded.

Performance path – each project team chooses either Option 1 or Option 2 to show compliance for both EAp2 and EAc1 in a single unified step:

Option 1 (streamlined) – the building stand-alone scenario

Option 2 (full accounting) – the aggregate building / DES scenario

CRITICAL NOTE: under this updated (version 2) DES guidance document, no project team is required to assess both options, nor to model separately for EAp2 and EAc1. This is a substantial difference from version 1 of this guidance intended to simplify the guidance and improve its flexibility.

For DES projects the points available under the energy modeling/performance path have restrictions in each Option as shown in Table 1:

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

Line

Table 1: EAc1 points restrictions for DES projects using energy models

Points available in Rating System DES Option 1 points cap*

DES Option 2 points floor**

LEED v2.x

LEED-NC 10 5 3

LEED Schools 10 5 3

LEED CS 8 4 2

LEED CI N/A (see Appx. A)

LEED v2009

LEED-NC 19 10 6

LEED-NC Retail 19 10 6

LEED Schools 19 10 6

LEED CS*** 21 12 8

LEED Healthcare**** 24 12 7 LEED CI N/A (see Appx. A) LEED CI Retail N/A (see Appx. A)

* points cap means this is the maximum number of points that can be earned in this scenario; projects seeking more points must use Option 2 ** points floor means this is the minimum number of points that can be earned in this scenario; projects seeking fewer points must use Option 1. (Exception: this points floor does not apply when the building housing the thermal energy plant is itself the LEED project building.)

*** EAc1 has a 3-point minimum for all projects in the v2009 LEED-CS rating system. The points caps and floors in this table reflect that 3-point minimum.

**** these are the expected points values for LEED for Healthcare. As of the publishing date of this document this rating system was not yet final, so these values are subject to change.

Using either performance Option 1 or Option 2, follow the modeling guidelines and requirements in ASHRAE standard 90.1 Appendix G, except as noted below under Sections 2.4.3 to 2.4.5 of this document, “Energy Model Implementation.”

2.4.1 Energy Model Implementation: Treatment of Heating/Cooling Equipment

2.4.1.1 Model for Option 1 (Building stand-alone scenario):

In Option 1, the energy model’s scope accounts for only downstream equipment. This scenario is modeled in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G requirements with the following exceptions:

1. The energy source is modeled as purchased energy in both the Proposed and Baseline buildings for all air handlers, fan-coil units, and other downstream equipment serviced by district or campus energy systems in order to hold the DES cost-neutral in the model (Table 2 below).

2. Where necessary, building Baseline HVAC system types from Tables G3.1.A and G3.1.B are modified to be consistent with the purchased energy source (Table 3 below).

Any system parameters not specifically referenced in Table 3 are modeled as specified in Appendix G. These changes only apply for building equipment serviced by the DES.

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Rectangle

J4COEBJT

Line

All other portions of the building shall be modeled in accordance with Appendix G requirements.

Table 2: Energy Source for Option 1

Baseline Proposed

District heating Purchased heat Purchased heat

District cooling Purchased chilled water Purchased chilled water

Table 3: Option 1 Baseline System Type Revisions From ASHRAE Appendix G Instructions

ASHRAE

App G

Baseline System

Type

District Energy System Used in Proposed Design:

District Cooling Only District Heating Only District

Heating & Cooling

C ha ng es fr om

A pp

G B as el in e

System 1 4-pipe Fan Coil w/ HW Boiler Heat No Change1 4-pipe Fan

Coil

System 2 4-pipe Fan Coil w/ HW Boiler Heat

System 3 2-pipe CV AHU w/ Fossil Fuel Furnace

PSZ-AC w/district heating

4-pipe CV

AHU

System 4 2-pipe CV AHU w/ Fossil Fuel Furnace

System 5 Change to System 7 No Change Change to System 7

System 6 Change to System 8

System 7 No Change No Change No Change

System 8 No Change

2.4.1.2 Model for Option 2 (Aggregate Building / DES Scenario):

In Option 2, the energy model’s scope accounts for both downstream equipment and upstream equipment. The DES energy source is no longer modeled as cost-neutral purchased energy;

rather, a virtual DES-equivalent plant for the Proposed case is constructed and compared to code-compliant on-site equipment for the Baseline case (Table 4). The Proposed case modeling

1 For spaces that are served by district chilled water, and meet exceptions (b) or (c) to G3.1.1, the changes to System types 3 and 4 shall be as shown in Table 3 above.

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Rectangle

Rectangle requirements differ from those in ASHRAE standard 90.1 Appendix G as described below.

However, the Baseline case system type is modeled as instructed in Appendix G.

Table 4: Energy Source for Option 2

District heating

Baseline On-site heating plant or fossil fuel furnaces as defined in ASHRAE 90.1 Appx. G, tables G3.1.1A and G3.1.1B, representing code minimum efficiency2

Proposed Virtual on-site hot water or steam boiler representing upstream DH system

District cooling

Baseline On-site cooling plant or packaged cooling as defined in ASHRAE 90.1 Appx. G, tables G3.1.1A and G3.1.1B, representing code minimum efficiency3

Proposed Virtual on-site chiller representing upstream DC system

2.4.1.2.1 Efficiency calculation

The energy model for Option 2 shall specify the efficiencies of the equipment as follows:

Baseline building, heating or cooling: use the nominal rated efficiencies for the appropriate system as instructed in Appendix G and as defined in Paragraph 6.8, Minimum Equipment Efficiency Tables. Model the actual operating inefficiencies and part-load performance for all equipment and systems using the rules and procedures defined in Appendix G.

Proposed building, transmission and distribution system: secondary pumping energy, leaks, and thermal losses between the DES central plant and the connected building in both directions must be accounted for in the Proposed Case model for all cases where they apply. Projects shall use actual DES operational data if the DES is pre-existing, or for new DES’s design estimates based on expected operation may be substituted.

Proposed building, heating, cooling, and CHP generation:

Use a virtual plant with the same average efficiencies of the entire upstream DES heating, cooling and/or CHP system based on actual loading. Average efficiencies can be determined using either the Monitoring or Modeling methods described in Appendix C, and may be determined annually, seasonally, monthly, hourly, or for each utility time block.

See Appendix C for further guidance on calculating virtual plant efficiencies.

2.4.1.2.2 Proposed Building, Calculating Combined Heat & Power Efficiency

Combined heat and power (CHP) captures the heat that would otherwise be rejected in traditional fossil fuel generation of electrical power so that the total efficiency of these integrated systems is much greater than from central station power plants and separate thermal systems. CHP systems also produce lower emissions compared to traditional fossil fuel generation. Other benefits include reduction in peak demand, releasing of electrical system capacity, and reduction in overall electrical system transmission and distribution losses.

2 Note: For the Option 2 baseline energy model, the Section G3.1.1.1 requirement to model purchased hot water or steam shall be ignored, and baseline boilers or fossil fuel furnaces shall be modeled in the Baseline Case.

3 Note: For Option 2, per ASHRAE 90.1-2004, Section G3.1.3.7, the energy source for chillers shall always be electric regardless of the cooling energy source used at the central plant.

Line

The treatment of CHP under the ASHRAE 90.1 Performance Rating Method (PRM, Appendix G) comes under the purview of G2.4 Energy Rates. G2.4 adequately addresses on-site CHP systems but does not provide a methodology for recognizing the potential benefits of district or campus CHP. This document provides additional guidance for district or campus CHP systems.

See Appendix D for further guidance on calculating CHP in Option 2.

2.4.1.2.3 Default Efficiencies

Actual efficiency performance data on the DES serving the project building is preferred, based on either ongoing operations (existing DES) or design specifications (new DES or DES with added capacity). If the project team cannot obtain the actual performance data, it is permissible to use the following default average performance values. These values are conservative, intended to represent a DES with relatively low efficiency. A well-designed, maintained, and operating DES will generally offer better performance than the defaults listed here. Default values are as follows:

• DES heating plant – 70% (Higher Heating Value) for the total boiler plant average efficiency.

• DES cooling plant – COP of 4.4 for the total cooling plant average efficiency (including cooling towers and primary pumps).

• Thermal distribution losses – the following values may be used to account for seasonal thermal distribution losses including minor leaks and/or condensate losses (but not pumping energy, which must be accounted for separately where it applies):

o chilled water district cooling 5% o hot water district heating 10% o closed loop steam systems 15%; open loop steam systems 25% o steam systems that are partially open/closed must prorate between the above 15% and 25% losses in accordance with the fraction of expected or actual condensate loss

NOTE: all the guidance in Section 2.4.3 assumes that DES-generated heat is used for heat in the connected building, and DES-generated cooling is used for cooling in the connected building. If the DES produces heating that is then converted to cooling for the connected building using absorption chillers or other similar technology then this guidance must be modified. See Appendix E for details.

2.4.2 Energy Model Implementation: Energy rates

Energy tariffs (rate structures) for both the Proposed and Baseline Buildings must be identical to each other for the corresponding energy types, and are defined in the models as follows:

2.4.2.1 Option 1 (Building stand-alone scenario)

Energy rates for all non-DES-supplied energy are assigned using the normal ASHRAE and LEED modeling rules, using the local utility rate schedules as they would normally be applied.

DES-supplied energy is not modeled using the actual purchased energy rates paid to the DES supplier. Instead, separate virtual DES rates are calculated for each type of energy supplied by the DES (e.g., chilled water, hot water, or steam) based on the virtual energy rates for each type

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Line of fuel. If a flat rate structure is being used for all energy sources (meaning the cost per unit energy is the same throughout the year, and there are no demand charges), then these flat rates simply become the virtual energy rates for the project.

Otherwise, if all energy rate structures are not flat, then a preliminary run of the Option 1 Baseline Case energy model must first be completed to identify the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates for the project. For this preliminary run only, the rate for the DES-supplied energy may be left blank, or may be entered as any value.

Once all the virtual energy rates are known for electricity and fossil fuel, the virtual DES rates for both the Baseline and Proposed Case are then derived as follows:

District Chilled Water Rate:

• Units of $/MBTU = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 71

• Units of $/ton-hour = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.85

District Hot Water Rate:

• Units of $/MBTU = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/MBTU) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in

$/kWh) x 3 District Steam Rate:

• Units of $/MBTU = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/MBTU) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3

Exception: to obtain the virtual fuel rate when the connected building does not use fossil fuel but the DES central plant does, use a flat rate consistent with the central plant rates or the historic average local market rates (no preliminary model run is needed). The virtual fuel rates must match in the Baseline and Proposed Case.

The virtual DES rates are then input into the modeling software for each DES source and used for the remainder of the process. Alternatively, the virtual DES rates may be used to calculate the DES energy costs directly by multiplying the DES energy consumption for each DES source by its virtual DES rate. All virtual DES energy rates must be identical in the Baseline and Proposed Case.

2.4.2.2 Option 2 (Aggregate Building / DES scenario)

In this modeling scenario fuel and electricity rates are assigned using the same local utility rates as normally applied to the building and using the normal ASHRAE and LEED modeling rules. For the Baseline Building the rates are applied to the code-compliant heating or cooling plant as instructed in Appendix G, and for the Proposed Building the rates are applied to the virtual plant according to the actual energy sources used in the upstream DES (electricity, gas, oil, etc.).

Exception:

(a) For fuels used at the central plant that are not available at the building (e.g. diesel fuel), use the central plant rates for that fuel type in the Baseline and Proposed Case.

(b) For district energy plants utilizing methods to reduce cost by shifting electric Peak or Mid- Peak demand (such as thermal energy storage or hybrid absorption / electric cooling), the average cooling efficiencies may be determined for each utility time block (e.g.

Summer Peak, Summer Mid-Peak, Summer Off-Peak, Winter Mid-Peak, Winter Off- Peak). If this method is employed, the cooling and plant pumping energy and demand shall be separately metered in both the baseline and proposed energy models, and the district plant utility tariffs may be used for these meters in both the baseline and proposed case.

Rectangle

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

J4COEBJT

Line

2.4.3 Energy Model Implementation - Run and Compare the Proper Scenarios

Assess the number of potential points earnable using the performance tiers listed in the Rating System. Compliance with the modeling requirements in ASHRAE 90.1Informative Appendix G is required, except where modified in this document. In the LEED Online certification documentation, provide a narrative that derives the claimed DES performance and explains how it is used in the energy model.

2.4.3.1 Option 1 (Building Stand-Alone Scenario)

Perform a model run on the project building modeling only downstream equipment and using purchased DES energy in the models with the energy rates described above.

2.4.3.2 Option 2 (Aggregate Building / DES Scenario)

Perform a model run that incorporates the effects of the DES on the heating and/or cooling systems as described above (i.e., modeling both downstream and upstream equipment). Both the DES central plant and the transmission and distribution network shall be accounted for using the above guidance. This may be procedurally implemented in any technically reasonable manner, e.g., a chiller or boiler efficiency correction coefficient within the model to account for upstream energy losses, post-processing of the energy model results, etc. The procedural method chosen must be fully explained in the LEED certification application.

2.5 On-Site Renewable Energy (EAc2)

Renewable energy sources as defined in EAc2 (e.g., electricity, heat, or chilled water energy produced from photovoltaics, solar thermal systems, wind turbines, geothermal, low-impact hydro, wave/tidal, untreated wood waste, agricultural crops or waste, animal and other organic waste, and landfill gas) are the only renewable sources allowed for credit under EAc2. The use of air; ocean, lake, or river water; or ambient earth for a thermal heating or cooling sink is categorized as an efficiency strategy in LEED and falls under EAc1. The proper treatment of renewable energy in LEED certification application calculations is covered in the Reference Guide.

For projects documenting EAp2/c1 using energy model Option 2 (aggregate building/DES scenario), qualifying renewable energy sources according to the definition above used in a DES may earn points in EAc2 for a connected building, i.e., they count as “on-site” renewable energy for the connected building. For any projects using energy model Option 1 for EAp2/c1, renewable DES sources do not earn points in EAc2 for a connected building.

Performance for EAc2 is based on the fraction of the project building’s annual energy cost that is renewable energy. The project building’s total annual energy cost shall be derived from the Proposed Case modeling run of the Option 2 scenario described in the EAc1 section of this document.

The fraction of project costs offset by renewable energy contributed by the DES depends on how much of the building’s load the DES supplies, and how much of the DES energy source is renewable. The total cost offset is based on the product of these two factors. For each thermal energy source provided to the building by the District Plant, calculate the renewable contribution as follows:

1. Find the fraction of the annual DES thermal energy source provided by qualifying renewable sources. If two fuel sources are required to generate the thermal energy source (e.g., electric pumps and natural gas burners for boilers), the fraction of DES provided by the qualifying renewable source should be based on amount (e.g., kBtus), and should account for all end-uses used to generate the thermal energy source.

Rectangle

J4COEBJT

Line

APPENDIX D: CHP Modeling Guidance for EAp2/EAc1 Option 2

Generally, LEED projects using the energy modeling path for EAp2 or EAc1 may use either the Option 1 approach (Building Stand-Alone Scenario) or the Option 2 approach (Aggregate Building / DES Scenario). Under Option 2 some projects will have a CHP plant (cogeneration plant) within the DES. In such scenarios the fuel inputs, electric generation outputs, and heat recovery shall be modeled as described in this appendix.

The baseline case is modeled as described in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G and as summarized in section 2.4 above. Although the baseline case is not modeled as CHP (i.e., the model assumes separate production of electricity and thermal energy), in some situations, for CHP energy accounting purposes, the baseline case is charged with extra energy use. The situations when this applies and the method for making this adjustment are defined below.

The proposed case may be modeled in various ways, each of which is described below.

Calculation Methods The average electric generation, fuel input, and heat recovery of the CHP shall be determined OR the defaults for electric and thermal efficiency below shall be used in conjunction with capacity ratings of the equipment to calculate the average electric generation and fuel input.

The following are acceptable methods of calculating annual electric generation:

○ Monitor the total annual gross electric generation. Also monitor the total annual parasitic loads (such as the annual electricity used for cooling the intake air for a turbine). The net annual electric generation would be calculated as the annual gross electricity generated with all parasitic loads subtracted out.

○ Model the generators in energy simulation software based on the rules and procedures defined in Appendix G: Use peak electric efficiencies, and generator curves that match the installed generator(s). Apply measured or estimated load profiles as “process loads” to reflect the estimated total electric and thermal loads on the district energy CHP system. Use the total energy generated and total fuel input from this analysis. Any parasitic loads (such as the annual electricity used for cooling the intake air for a turbine) must be included in the analysis and subtracted from the annual electric generation to calculate the total annual electric generation.

The following are acceptable methods of calculating annual fuel input:

○ Monitor the total annual fuel input to the generator(s).

○ Model the generators in energy simulation software based on the rules and procedures defined in Appendix G. Use peak electric efficiencies, and generator curves that match the installed generator(s).

The following are acceptable methods of calculating waste heat recovery:

○ Monitor the total waste heat recovered.

○ Model the generators in energy simulation software based on the rules and procedures defined in Appendix G. Use peak electric efficiencies, and generator curves that match the installed generator(s). Model the thermal equipment served by the CHP waste heat (e.g. boilers, absorption chillers, etc.) using the installed equipment capacities, efficiencies and efficiency curves, and reflecting the total heating and cooling loads on

Line the plant as a process load. Use the energy modeling outputs to identify the total heat recovered.

CHP Electric Output Proposed case: allocate the electricity generation to the building based on the fraction of thermal loads to the building for the DES sources that use recovered waste heat. For each DES source supplied to the building, determine the fraction of the recovered waste heat applied to that source as well as the amount serving the project building. The same calculation approach is taken for all DES systems, but relatively simple DES systems can use a simplified formula as shown below:

Simple DES/CHP arrangement: for CHP plants in which the recovered waste heat is used directly in the DES and that heat serves only heating loads in the connected buildings, the electricity generation assigned to each building is calculated as:

CHP_ELECBLDG = (XHEAT * BLDGHEAT) * CHP_ELECTOTAL

Where:

CHP_ELECBLDG = The CHP electricity generation allocated to the building

XHEAT = The fraction of the CHP plant’s total production of waste heat applied to the DES directly

BLDGHEAT = The fraction of total district heat provided to the building

CHP_ELECTOTAL = The total CHP electricity generated at the DES plant

General, more complex arrangement: this is for CHP plants in which a portion of the recovered heat is used to drive absorption chillers that provide cooling through a DES chilled water loop, and/or a portion of the recovered heat is used for a third, separate district energy source (e.g., if the building connects to both a steam loop and a hot water loop, or to two separate chilled water loops). In this case the electricity generation assigned to each building is calculated as:

CHP_ELECBLDG = [ (XHEAT * BLDGHEAT) + (YCHW * BLDGCHW) + (ZSOURCE * BLDGSOURCE)

] * CHP_ELECTOTAL

Where:

CHP_ELECBLDG = (same as above for simple case)

XHEAT = (same as above for simple case)

BLDGHEAT = (same as above for simple case)

YCHW = The fraction of the CHP plant’s total production of waste heat applied to producing chilled water in the DES

BLDGCHW = The fraction of total district chilled water provided to the building

ZSOURCE = The fraction of the CHP plant’s total production of waste heat applied to the 3rd district energy source

BLDGSOURCE = The fraction of the 3rd district energy source that is provided to the building

CHP_ELECTOTAL = (same as above for simple case)

Line

Baseline case: follow the general procedures described in section 2.4 of this document, and adjust the results as follows depending on the results of the DES electricity allocation and the total modeled electricity use of the building in the Option 2 Proposed Design (including the electricity consumption of district plant equipment serving the building):

• Scenario A – the building’s allocation of CHP-generated electricity is less than or equal to its modeled electricity consumption: No adjustment. The Baseline building is charged with the energy used by its (non-CHP) systems at market rates using standard procedures.

• Scenario B – the building’s allocation of CHP-generated electricity exceeds its modeled electricity consumption: the amount of excess CHP electricity allocated to the building is considered “process energy” in the energy model. Adjust the input fuel associated with this excess CHP electricity in the Baseline case as described below.

CHP Fuel Input

Allocate the CHP input fuel to the project building based on a proration and assignment of the total input fuel according to the results of the CHP electricity allocation described above. Use the prevailing energy rates as they apply to the design building. Any additional energy used by the proposed design building is also charged at market rates. Use the following formulas:

Proposed Case (all scenarios): the CHP input fuel allocated to the building is calculated as:

ProposedBLDGFUEL = (CHP_ELECBLDG / CHP_ELECTOTAL) * CHPFUEL

ProposedBLDGFUEL = The proposed case CHP input fuel allocated to the building

CHP_ELECBLDG = The CHP electricity generation allocated to the building (i.e., the result of the previous calculations)

CHP_ELECTOTAL = The total CHP electricity generated at the DES plant

CHPFUEL = The total CHP fuel input for electricity generation at the DES plant

Baseline Case (scenario B only): If the CHP-generated electricity allocated to the building exceeds the modeled electricity consumption of the proposed building, then the baseline case is charged with the CHP input fuel associated with that “process” electricity in order to hold this portion of the CHP energy use cost-neutral in the model:

BaselineBLDGFUEL = (PROCESS_ELECBLDG / CHP_ELECTOTAL) * CHPFUEL with

PROCESS_ELECBLDG = CHP_ELECBLDG - PROPOSED_ELECBLDG

BaselineBLDGFUEL = The baseline case CHP input fuel charged to the building

PROCESS_ELECBLDG = the amount of allocated CHP electricity in excess of the building’s modeled

Rectangle

J4COEBJT

Line mkf Typewritten Text

Taylor, Brian J POA

From: Agrawal, Ashish N CTR (IN) [ashish.n.agrawal.ctr@mail.mil] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:04 AM To: Taylor, Brian J POA Cc: Ouzts, Jerry K POA; Velasco, Monica J POA; Sinigaglio, Bruno F CIV (US); Salmon, Philip L

POA

Subject: RE: FTW374 LEED Energy Credit (UNCLASSIFIED) Signed By: ashish.agrawal@us.army.mil

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Brian, Sorry, I did not respond to your earlier email. Here is the data that you are looking for (these are FY13 numbers):

1) Total electricity generated at the CHPP: 144,075 MWh

2) Total steam to distribution system: 1,542,227 kLbs/year

3) Percentage of steam directly through PRVs: 0% (100% of our distributed steam came from turbines through extraction at 80 psi average pressure)

I believe, we have confidence in the electricity numbers. The steam readings may be inaccurate. DU is in the process of replacing all steam meters at the power plant.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Just reading your email again, you requested data for FY12. Do you still need it or the FY13 (most recent) data will suffice?

Thank you, Ashish Agrawal, PhD, CEM Senior Consultant 1060 Gaffney Road, Building 3015 Fort Wainwright, AK 99703 T: 907.361.4540 M: 907.347.9990 ashish.agrawal@guernsey.us guernsey.us

REALIZE THE DIFFERENCE

This message and its attachments contain confidential information and are intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e‐mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e‐mail if you have received this e‐mail by mistake and delete this e‐mail from your system. E‐mail transmission, including transmission of attachments, cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error‐free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message or its attachments, which arise as a result of e‐mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard‐copy version.

Rectangle

FTW374A Eletrical Energy Credit In accordance with "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 ‐ Design & Construction, August 13, 2010"

CENTRAL HEAT & POWER PLANT (CHPP), 2011/2012 UNITS DESCRIPTION EQUATIONS

1 Power Produced 114,737 MWH / Year Average annual plant output (2011 & 2012), see 09/25/2013 e‐mail from Mr. Ashish Agrawal

2 Steam Supplied to Campus/Base/Post 1,424,000 Klbs / Year Steam output to campus/base/post 3 Secondary Steam Source Input Into District Loop 0.00% % Steam added to maintain pressure at PRV's 4 Heat to Power Ratio 12.41 Klbs / MWH Ratio of Steam Supplied to Power Produced = Line 2 / Line 1

PROPOSED BUILDING

5 Proposed Building Steam Consumption 485 Klbs / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 6 Proposed Building Steam Consumption $7,505 $ / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 7 Proposed Building Power Consumption 365 MWH / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 (Converted) 8 Proposed Building Power Cost $62,842 $ / Year From energy model 9/24/2013

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS

9 Xheat 100% % % of steam distribution that produced power = 1 ‐ Line 3 10 BLKDGHeat ‐ Fraction of DES to Building 0.03% % % of total steam for proposed building = Line 5 / Line 2 11 CHP_ELECTotal 114,737 MWH / Year From Above = Line 1 12 Free Power to the Building from the CHPP 39.040 MWH = Line 9 * Line 10 * Line 11 13 Power Savings for Proposed Model for CHPP waste heat $6,717 $ Ratio of new power cost = Line 12 * (Line 8 / Line 7)

LEED SUMMARY

14 Proposed Building Heat Cost $7,505 $ From Above = Line 6 15 Proposed Building Power Cost Less Savings $56,125 $ = Line 8 ‐ Line 13 16 New Total Proposed Building Cost $63,630 $ = Line 14 + Line 15 17 Total Baseline Building Cost $90,359 $ 18 Percent Savings by Overall Building Cost 29.58% % = (Line 17 ‐ Line 16) / Line 17 19 LEED POINTS by NC 3 10 Points

CENTRAL HEAT & POWER PLANT (CHPP), 2013 UNITS DESCRIPTION EQUATIONS

1 Power Produced 144,075 MWH / Year Average annual plant output (FY13), see 10/28/2013 e‐mail from Mr. Ashish Agrawal

2 Steam Supplied to Campus/Base/Post 1,542,227 Klbs / Year Steam output to campus/base/post 3 Secondary Steam Source Input Into District Loop 0.00% % Steam added to maintain pressure at PRV's 4 Heat to Power Ratio 10.70 Klbs / MWH Ratio of Steam Supplied to Power Produced = Line 2 / Line 1

PROPOSED BUILDING

5 Proposed Building Steam Consumption 485 Klbs / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 6 Proposed Building Steam Consumption $7,505 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 7 Proposed Building Power Consumption 365 MWH / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 (Converted) 8 Proposed Building Power Cost $62,842 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS

9 Xheat 100% % % of steam distribution that produced power = 1 ‐ Line 3 10 BLKDGHeat ‐ Fraction of DES to Building 0.03% % % of total steam for proposed building = Line 5 / Line 2 11 CHP_ELECTotal 144,075 MWH / Year From Above = Line 1 12 Free Power to the Building from the CHPP 45.264 MWH = Line 9 * Line 10 * Line 11 13 Power Savings for Proposed Model for CHPP waste heat $7,788 $ Ratio of new power cost = Line 12 * (Line 8 / Line 7)

LEED SUMMARY

14 Proposed Building Heat Cost $7,505 $ From Above = Line 6 15 Proposed Building Power Cost Less Savings $55,054 $ = Line 8 ‐ Line 13 16 New Total Proposed Building Cost $62,559 $ = Line 14 + Line 15 17 Total Baseline Building Cost $90,359 $ 18 Percent Savings by Overall Building Cost 30.77% % = (Line 17 ‐ Line 16) / Line 17 19 LEED POINTS by NC 3 9 Points

CENTRAL HEAT & POWER PLANT (CHPP), Average 2011‐2013 UNITS DESCRIPTION EQUATIONS 1 Power Produced 124,516 MWH / Year Average annual plant output (2011 thru 2013) 2 Steam Supplied to Campus/Base/Post 1,463,409 Klbs / Year Steam output to campus/base/post (Average) 3 Secondary Steam Source Input Into District Loop 0.00% % Steam added to maintain pressure at PRV's 4 Heat to Power Ratio 11.75 Klbs / MWH Ratio of Steam Supplied to Power Produced = Line 2 / Line 1

PROPOSED BUILDING

5 Proposed Building Steam Consumption 485 Klbs / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 6 Proposed Building Steam Consumption $7,505 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 7 Proposed Building Power Consumption 365 MWH / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 (Converted) 8 Proposed Building Power Cost $62,842 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS

9 Xheat 100% % % of steam distribution that produced power = 1 ‐ Line 3 10 BLKDGHeat ‐ Fraction of DES to Building 0.03311% % % of total steam for proposed building = Line 5 / Line 2 11 CHP_ELECTotal 124,516 MWH / Year From Above = Line 1 12 Free Power to the Building from the CHPP 41.227 MWH = Line 9 * Line 10 * Line 11 13 Power Savings for Proposed Model for CHPP waste heat $7,093 $ Ratio of new power cost = Line 12 * (Line 8 / Line 7)

LEED SUMMARY

14 Proposed Building Heat Cost $7,505 $ From Above = Line 6 15 Proposed Building Power Cost Less Savings $55,749 $ = Line 8 ‐ Line 13 16 New Total Proposed Building Cost $63,254 $ = Line 14 + Line 15 17 Total Baseline Building Cost $90,359 $ 18 Percent Savings by Overall Building Cost 30.00% % = (Line 17 ‐ Line 16) / Line 17 19 LEED POINTS by NC 3 10 Points

EIE326 - APPNDX 05

J4COEBJT

Rectangle

Rectangle

FTW374A Eletrical Energy Credit In accordance with "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 ‐ Design & Construction, August 13, 2010"

CENTRAL HEAT & POWER PLANT (CHPP), 2011/2012 UNITS DESCRIPTION EQUATIONS

1 Power Produced 114,737 MWH / Year Average annual plant output (2011 & 2012), see 09/25/2013 e‐mail from Mr. Ashish Agrawal

2 Steam Supplied to Campus/Base/Post 1,424,000 Klbs / Year Steam output to campus/base/post 3 Secondary Steam Source Input Into District Loop 0.00% % Steam added to maintain pressure at PRV's 4 Heat to Power Ratio 12.41 Klbs / MWH Ratio of Steam Supplied to Power Produced = Line 2 / Line 1

PROPOSED BUILDING

5 Proposed Building Steam Consumption 485 Klbs / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 6 Proposed Building Steam Consumption $7,505 $ / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 7 Proposed Building Power Consumption 365 MWH / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 (Converted) 8 Proposed Building Power Cost $62,842 $ / Year From energy model 9/24/2013

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS

9 Xheat 100% % % of steam distribution that produced power = 1 ‐ Line 3 10 BLKDGHeat ‐ Fraction of DES to Building 0.03% % % of total steam for proposed building = Line 5 / Line 2 11 CHP_ELECTotal 114,737 MWH / Year From Above = Line 1 12 Free Power to the Building from the CHPP 39.040 MWH = Line 9 * Line 10 * Line 11 13 Power Savings for Proposed Model for CHPP waste heat $6,717 $ Ratio of new power cost = Line 12 * (Line 8 / Line 7)

LEED SUMMARY

14 Proposed Building Heat Cost $7,505 $ From Above = Line 6 15 Proposed Building Power Cost Less Savings $56,125 $ = Line 8 ‐ Line 13 16 New Total Proposed Building Cost $63,630 $ = Line 14 + Line 15 17 Total Baseline Building Cost $90,359 $ 18 Percent Savings by Overall Building Cost 29.58% % = (Line 17 ‐ Line 16) / Line 17

EXAMPLE

CENTRAL HEAT & POWER PLANT (CHPP), 2013 UNITS DESCRIPTION EQUATIONS

1 Power Produced 144,075 MWH / Year Average annual plant output (FY13), see 10/28/2013 e‐mail from Mr. Ashish Agrawal

2 Steam Supplied to Campus/Base/Post 1,542,227 Klbs / Year Steam output to campus/base/post 3 Secondary Steam Source Input Into District Loop 0.00% % Steam added to maintain pressure at PRV's 4 Heat to Power Ratio 10.70 Klbs / MWH Ratio of Steam Supplied to Power Produced = Line 2 / Line 1

PROPOSED BUILDING

5 Proposed Building Steam Consumption 485 Klbs / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 6 Proposed Building Steam Consumption $7,505 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 7 Proposed Building Power Consumption 365 MWH / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 (Converted) 8 Proposed Building Power Cost $62,842 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS

9 Xheat 100% % % of steam distribution that produced power = 1 ‐ Line 3 10 BLKDGHeat ‐ Fraction of DES to Building 0.03% % % of total steam for proposed building = Line 5 / Line 2 11 CHP_ELECTotal 144,075 MWH / Year From Above = Line 1 12 Free Power to the Building from the CHPP 45.264 MWH = Line 9 * Line 10 * Line 11 13 Power Savings for Proposed Model for CHPP waste heat $7,788 $ Ratio of new power cost = Line 12 * (Line 8 / Line 7)

LEED SUMMARY

14 Proposed Building Heat Cost $7,505 $ From Above = Line 6 15 Proposed Building Power Cost Less Savings $55,054 $ = Line 8 ‐ Line 13 16 New Total Proposed Building Cost $62,559 $ = Line 14 + Line 15 17 Total Baseline Building Cost $90,359 $ 18 Percent Savings by Overall Building Cost 30.77% % = (Line 17 ‐ Line 16) / Line 17 19 LEED POINTS by NC 3 9 Points

CENTRAL HEAT & POWER PLANT (CHPP), Average 2011‐2013 UNITS DESCRIPTION EQUATIONS 1 Power Produced 124,516 MWH / Year Average annual plant output (2011 thru 2013) 2 Steam Supplied to Campus/Base/Post 1,463,409 Klbs / Year Steam output to campus/base/post (Average) 3 Secondary Steam Source Input Into District Loop 0.00% % Steam added to maintain pressure at PRV's 4 Heat to Power Ratio 11.75 Klbs / MWH Ratio of Steam Supplied to Power Produced = Line 2 / Line 1

PROPOSED BUILDING

5 Proposed Building Steam Consumption 485 Klbs / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 6 Proposed Building Steam Consumption $7,505 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013 7 Proposed Building Power Consumption 365 MWH / Year From energy model 9/24/2013 (Converted) 8 Proposed Building Power Cost $62,842 $ / Year From energy model 10/28/2013

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS

9 Xheat 100% % % of steam distribution that produced power = 1 ‐ Line 3 10 BLKDGHeat ‐ Fraction of DES to Building 0.03311% % % of total steam for proposed building = Line 5 / Line 2 11 CHP_ELECTotal 124,516 MWH / Year From Above = Line 1 12 Free Power to the Building from the CHPP 41.227 MWH = Line 9 * Line 10 * Line 11 13 Power Savings for Proposed Model for CHPP waste heat $7,093 $ Ratio of new power cost = Line 12 * (Line 8 / Line 7)

LEED SUMMARY

14 Proposed Building Heat Cost $7,505 $ From Above = Line 6 15 Proposed Building Power Cost Less Savings $55,749 $ = Line 8 ‐ Line 13 16 New Total Proposed Building Cost $63,254 $ = Line 14 + Line 15 17 Total Baseline Building Cost $90,359 $ 18 Percent Savings by Overall Building Cost 30.00% % = (Line 17 ‐ Line 16) / Line 17