A library consortium DC partners with the city energy office so the AI pod can claim renewable supply. Which evaluation best supports that sustainability design?

When a library consortium DC partners with the city energy office so the AI pod can claim renewable supply, the sustainability design that holds up under evaluation is integrating verified renewable energy supply or credits into the AI facility power plan. Verification (contracts, certificates, metered allocation, or equivalent municipal documentation) ties the consortium's GPU hall consumption to a defensible green supply story rather than a marketing claim.

Attributing estimated citywide average renewable share to the AI facility power plan fails assurance: it borrows a grid-average estimate, not attributable supply, and civic auditors expect evidence tying consumption to verified green instruments. Retiring unverified renewable credits from prior vintages for the AI facility power plan is the wrong layer—it offers no verifiable attestation and stale vintage coverage, not auditable renewable supply, and does not establish the green power claim the consortium needs. Allocating renewable supply to office lighting loads outside the AI facility power plan confuses the accounting boundary with renewable procurement; covering office lighting does not verify that the AI pod's electricity comes from renewable supply or credits.

Exam caveat: Domain 2.4-style sustainability evaluation accepts renewables and credits as design inputs only when they are attributable and auditable; attributing an estimated citywide average renewable share does not satisfy facility design review for municipal AI renewable-supply claims.

Operational check: map the library consortium's metered AI pod load to the energy office's verified renewable instruments or supply contracts, retain evidence with the facility power plan, and confirm reporting stakeholders can trace claim → instrument → kWh boundary.