To improve the building’s overall energy performance and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Meet both the whole-building energy simulation and commissioningThe process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. requirements:
Demonstrate a 5% improvement over the baseline building performanceThe annual energy cost for a building design, used as a baseline for comparison with above-standard design. rating. Calculate the baseline according to the building performance rating method of USGBC’s residential midrise simulation guidelines, which is based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G (with errata), or USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the United States, using a computer simulation model for the whole-building project.
Comply with the mandatory provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010 (with errata).
Comply with USGBC’s residential midrise simulation guidelines.
Include all energy consumption and energy costs associated with the building project.
Compare the design case with a baseline building that complies with Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G (with errata but without addenda).
Option 1. Commissioning using ENERGY STAR protocols. Meet the ENERGY STAR Qualified Multifamily High Rise Buildings Testing and Verification (T&V) Protocols.
Option 2. Commissioning using Prescriptive Path.
Meet all of the following:
Certified Passive House projects automatically meet the thermal enclosure inspection checklist requirement.
Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage cost improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for cost percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement many of these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
The following exceptions apply:
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modeled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G18.104.22.168).
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 22.214.171.124. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modelling.
The EAp1 v4 requirement is to meet ESv3 by completing the thermal enclosure system rater checklist, the HVAC system quality install rater and contractor checklist and the water management system builder checklist. Current ESv3 versions are titled Rater Design Review Checklist, HVAC design report, HVAC Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements.
2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. Checklist, and Water Management builder requirements. Should the current v3 checklists be used?
Per USGBC staff, yes, use the ESv3 checklists. (They are working with EPA to better coordinate on naming issues in the future.)
Where is the guideline document downloadable and does it include appendix B?
I've found the residential midrise simulation guidelines in a table here http://www.usgbc.org/node/9462224?view=resources&return=
yet not a document to download, and the table states "Hot water consumption associated with dwelling units shall be determined according to the exceptional calculation methodology detailed in Appendix B, Section B.1 of this manual."
The reference to Appendix B is a hold over from a previous format of the residential simulation guidelines, which is the online tool you linked to. Any reference to Appendix B should be ignored. Instead, for example, the hot water information it is referring to is in the table under the 'Residential Simulation Guidelines' left nav in the online resource.
This error was recently flagged, and will be corrected in the October 1, 2016 update.
I would like to confirm that PV is accounted for solely in the energy model for V4 Midrise projects. Unlike Homes, there are no credits targeting PV. Also, I see no Innovation credits. Thank you
Agreed on the first point, but there are Innovation credits.
A consultant informed us last week that you currently cannot use LEED for Homes v4. Is this true?
Joel, LEED v4 for Homes is available, yes (and you'll find all the credits here onLEEDuser). Perhaps the consultant was confused by the fact that the previous version of LEED for Homes is also still on the market.
Thanks, Tristan. They are claiming California has historically had its own version of LEED for Homes and that is what is currently not available in v4. Can you confirm?
Yes, California has historically had it's own version of LEED for Homes. The only difference has been the energy section, because T-24 addresses energy in a unique way (compared to the rest of the country/world), and USGBC aligned the energy section with T-24.
We are planning on doing an equivalency in the energy section to T-24 for LEED Homes v4 as well. However, we've heard that there will soon be a new approach to demonstrating energy savings in California (California HERS), so we are waiting for that program to launch before we issue a formal equivalency.
In the meantime, projects in California may use LEED v4, and just utilize the energy section from Homes v2008, which already requires that projects exceed T-24 2013 by 10%.
See Interpretation 10396 for Homes scoring: http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=10396
See Interpreation 10395 for Midrise scoring: http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=10395
If you (or anyone) has any additional questions, don't hesitate to contact me.
Copyright 2017 – BuildingGreen, Inc.