This prerequisite is a big one, not only because it’s required for all projects, but also because it feeds directly into EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, where about a fifth of the total available points in LEED are at stake. Master these minimum requirements, and you can use the same compliance path as in EAp2 to earning points.
You won’t earn the prerequisite by accident, though. Although “energy efficiency” is on everyone’s lips, the mandatory and performance-based requirements for EAp2 go beyond code compliance in most places. That said, there is nothing to stop you from meeting the requirements with a reasonable amount of effort, and the environmental benefits as well as the operational cost savings are significant.
Most projects start by choosing which of the three available compliance paths to follow. We’ll look at them each in turn.
Option 1 alone gives you access to all of the points available through EAc1, and offers the most flexibility in giving you credit for innovative designs.
First, you need to meet the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for all major components, including the envelope, HVAC, lighting, and domestic hot water. ASHRAE 90.1 has had some changes and new mandatory requirements since the 2004 version, which was referenced on previous LEED systems, so be sure to review the standard carefully.
Energy efficiency is an area where it behooves project teams to start early and work together to maximize savings. Playing catch-up later on can be costly.Second, you need to demonstrate a 10% savings (5% for existing buildings) for your designed building compared with a baseline case meeting the minimum requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 (or Title 24-2005, Part 6 for California projects). You do this by creating a computer model following rules described in Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1.
Computer modeling offers the following key advantages:
Your building type may not have a choice—you may have to follow this path, because both Options 2 and 3 are prescriptive compliance paths that are only available to specific building types and sizes.
However, if your building type and size allow, and you don’t want to embark on the complex process of computer modeling, which also requires expert assistance from a modeler or from a member of the mechanical engineer’s team, the prescriptive compliance paths are a good way to earn the prerequisite simply by following a checklist.
Passive design strategies such as shading to reduce solar heat gain are the most cost-effective ways to improve energy performance.Note, however, that when you get to EAc1, there are a lot fewer points on the table for the prescriptive paths, and that you have to follow each prescriptive requirement. These paths also require more collaboration and focus early on in design than you might think. The design team must work together to integrate all of the prescriptive requirements, and Option 3 even requires documentation of certain design processes.
The Advanced Energy Design Guides are published by ASHRAE for office, warehouse, and retail projects less than 20,000 ft2—so if you don’t fall into one of those categories, you’re not eligible for this path.
These guides outline strategies to reduce energy use by 30% from 2001 levels, or an amount equivalent to approximately 10%–14% reduction from ASHRAE 90.1-2007. If you choose this compliance path, become familiar with the list of prescriptive requirements and commit to meeting all of them.
The Core Performance Guide path is a good option if all of the following are true:
Comply with all requirements within Sections 1 and 2 of the guide. If you choose this path, become familiar with the list of prescriptive requirements and commit to meeting them. Also note that it’s not just a list of prescriptive requirements, but a prescribed process for achieving energy efficiency goals. You must demonstrate that you considered a couple of alternate designs, for example, and that certain team meetings were held.
Energy efficiency offers a clear combination of environmental benefit and benefit to the owner through reduced operational expenses, and potentially reduced first costs, if you’re able to reduce the size and complexity of your HVAC system with a more efficient envelope.
High-tech HVAC systems, and onsite renewable energy generation are often signature components of green buildings, but consider these strategies more “icing” on the cake, rather than a place to start. Start with building orientation and passive design features first. Also look at envelope design, such as energy-efficient windows, walls and roof, before looking at HVAC and plug loads. A poorly designed envelope with a high-tech HVAC system is not, on the whole, efficient or cost-effective.
Projects connected to district energy systems will not be able to utilize the system efficiencies of the base plant to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisite. They can plan on benefiting from these systems under EAc1, however.
Focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy generation can seem to add costs to a project, but there are a variety of utility-provided, as well as state, and federal incentives available to offset those premiums. (See Resources.)
Ideally if the software you are using cannot model a technology directly then seek a published workaround related to your software. If you can't find a published workaround then model it as you think it should be modeled and explain how you have modeled it in the preliminary LEED submission.
No, not if it is part of the LEED project. However, there is an exemption for existing building envelopes in Appendix G that allow you to model the existing condition in the baseline so you do not pay a penalty.
No, not for an existing building.
You must model accurately. Since you don't have enough savings in the building energy, find savings in the process. Either you will be able to demonstrate that compared to a conventional baseline the process being installed into the factory is demonstrably better than "similar newly constructed facilities," allowing you to claim some savings, or the owner needs to install some energy-saving measures into the process to get the project the rest of the way there. Either option can be difficult, but not impossible.
Account for process load reductions through the exceptional calculation method. A baseline must be established based on standard practice for the process in your location. Any claim of energy savings needs a thorough narrative explaining the baseline and the strategy for energy savings along with an explanation of how the savings were calculated.
It is common to have a 80%–90% process load in a manufacturing facility. The 25% default in LEED is based on office buildings. If you think your load is lower than 25%, it is recommended that you explain why in a short narrative. It is also recommended to briefly explain it if your load is 25% exactly, since that level commonly reveals that the process loads were not accurately represented.
The energy savings are based on the whole building energy use—building and process. LEED does not stipulate exactly where they come from.
For LEED 2009 you'll need touse 90.1-2007. There were some significant changes in 90.1-2010—too many to account for in your LEED review, and your project would also have a much harder time demonstrating the same percentage energy savings.
Yes according to LEED, although it is not recommended as a best practice, and it is usually more cost-effective to invest in energy savings in the building.
You can assume exterior lighting savings for canopies against the baseline, but not the shading effects of canopies.
If exterior lighting is present on the project site, consider it as a constant in both energy model cases.
Any conditioned area must be included in the energy model.
The Energy Star portion of the form does not apply to international projects.
Use the tables and definitions provided in 90.1 Appendix B to determine an equivalent ASHRAE climate zone.
International projects are not required to enter a Target Finder score. Target Finder is based on U.S. energy use data.
For Section 184.108.40.206c, a manual control device would be sufficient to comply with mandatory provisions.
Submitting these forms is not common; however, it can be beneficial if you are applying for any exceptions.
Use the building area method.
Although there is no formal list of approved simulation tools, there are a few requirements per G2.2.1, including the ability of the program to provide hourly simulation for 8760 hours per year, and model ten or more thermal zones, which PHPP does not meet.
The automated Trace 700 report provides less information than is requested by the Section 1.4 tables spreadsheet. The Section 1.4 tables spreadsheet must be completed.
Assign HVAC systems as per Appendix-G and Section 6 but set thermostatic setpointsSetpoints are normal operating ranges for building systems and indoor environmental quality. When the building systems are outside of their normal operating range, action is taken by the building operator or automation system. out of range so that systems never turn on.
If it is only used for backup and not for regular use such as peak shaving—no.
SHGC is not a mandatory provision so it is available for trade-off and can be higher than the baseline.
You generally wouldn't need to upload any documentation, but particularly for a non-U.S. project, it may help to provide a short narrative about what they are based on.
Discuss your project’s energy performance objectives, along with how those are shaping design decisions, with the owner. Record energy targets in the Owners Project Requirements (OPR) for the commissioning credits EAp1 and EAc3.
You won’t earn this prerequisite by accident. The energy efficiency requirements here are typically much more stringent than local codes, so plan on giving it special attention with your team, including leadership from the owner.
Consider stating goals in terms of minimum efficiency levels and specific payback periods. For example: “Our goal is to exceed a 20% reduction from ASHRAE 90.1, with all efficiency measures having a payback period of 10 years or less.”
Develop a precedent for energy targets by conducting research on similar building types and using the EPA’s Target Finder program. (See Resources.)
For Option 1 only, you will need to comply with the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007, to bring your project to the minimum level of performance. The ASHRAE 90.1-2007 User’s Manual is a great resource, with illustrated examples of solutions for meeting the requirements.
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 has some additional requirements compared with 2004. Read through the standard for a complete update. The following are some samples.
The prerequisite’s energy-reduction target of 10% is not common practice and is considered beyond code compliance.
Indirect sunlight delievered through clerestories like this helps reduce lighting loads as well as cooling loads. Photo – YRG Sustainability, Project – Cooper Union, New York A poorly designed envelope with a high-tech HVAC system is not, on the whole, efficient or cost-effective. Start with building orientation and passive design features first when looking for energy efficiency. Also look at envelope design, such as energy-efficient windows, walls and roof, before looking at HVAC and plug loads. HVAC may also be a good place to improve performance with more efficient equipment, but first reducing loads with smaller equipment can lead to even greater operational and upfront savings. A poorly designed envelope with a high-tech HVAC system is not, on the whole, efficient or cost-effective.
Don’t plan on using onsite renewable energy generation (see EAc2) to make your building energy-efficient. It is almost always more cost-effective to make an efficient building, and then to add renewables like photovoltaics as the “icing” on the cake.
Some rules of thumb to reduce energy use are:
Find the best credit compliance path based on your building type and energy-efficiency targets. Use the following considerations, noting that some projects are more suited to a prescriptive approach than others.
Option 1: Whole Building Energy Simulation requires estimating the energy use of the whole building over a calendar year, using methodology established by ASHRAE 90.1-2007, Appendix G. Option 1 establishes a computer model of the building’s architectural design and all mechanical, electrical, domestic hot water, plug load, and other energy-consuming systems and devices. The model incorporates the occupancy load and a schedule representing projected usage in order to predict energy use. This compliance path does not prescribe any technology or strategy, but requires a minimum reduction in total energy cost of 10% (5% for an existing building), compared to a baseline building with the same form and design but using systems compliant with ASHRAE 90.1-2007. You can earn additional LEED points through EAc1 for cost reductions of 12% and greater (8% for existing buildings).
Option 2: Prescriptive Compliance Path: ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide refers to design guides published by ASHRAE for office, school, warehouse, and retail projects. These guides outline strategies to reduce energy use by 30% from ASHRAE 90.1-2001 levels, or an amount equivalent to a 10%–14% reduction from the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standard. If you choose this compliance path, become familiar with the list of prescriptive requirements and commit to meeting them. (See the AEDG checklist in the Documentation Toolkit.)
Option 3: Prescriptive Compliance Path: Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide is another, more basic prescriptive path. It’s a good option if your project is smaller than 100,000 ft2, cannot pursue Option 2 (because there is not an ASHRAE guide for the building type), is not a healthcare facility, lab, or warehouse—or you would rather not commit to the energy modeling required for Option 1. Your project can be of any other building type (such as office or retail). To meet the prerequisite, you must comply with all requirements within Sections 1 and 2 of the guide. If you choose this path, become familiar with the list of activities and requirements and commit to meeting them. (See Resources for a link to the Core Performance Guide and the Documentation Toolkit for the checklist of prescriptive items.)
EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance uses the same structure of Options 1–3, so it makes sense to think about the credit and the prerequisite together when making your choice. In EAc1, Option 1 offers the potential for far more points than Options 2 and 3, so if you see your project as a likely candidate for earning those points, Option 1 may be best.
Hotels, multifamily residential, and unconventional commercial buildings may not be eligible for either Option 2 or Option 3, because the prescriptive guidance of these paths was not intended for them. Complex projects, unconventional building types, off-grid projects, or those with high energy-reduction goals are better off pursuing Option 1, which provides the opportunity to explore more flexible and innovative efficiency strategies and to trade off high-energy uses for lower ones.
If your project combines new construction and existing building renovation then whatever portion contains more than 50% of the floor area would determine the energy thresholds.
Options 2 and 3 are suitable for small, conventional building types that may not have as much to gain from detailed energy modeling with Option 1.
Meeting the prescriptive requirements of Options 2 and 3 is not common practice and requires a high degree of attention to detail by your project team. (See the Documentation Toolkit for the Core Performance Guide Checklist.) These paths are more straightforward than Option 1, but don’t think of them as easy.
Options 2 and 3 require additional consultant time from architects and MEP engineers over typical design commitment, which means higher upfront costs.
Option 1 references the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007, which are more stringent than earlier LEED rating systems that referred to ASHRAE 90.1-2004.
Option 1 energy simulation provides monthly and annual operating energy use and cost breakdowns. You can complete multiple iterations, refining energy-efficiency strategies each time. Payback periods can be quickly computed for efficiency strategies using their additional first costs. A building’s life is assumed to be 60 years. A payback period of five years is considered a very good choice, and 10 years is typically considered reasonable. Consult the OPR for your owners’ goals while selecting your efficiency strategies.
Option 1 energy simulation often requires hiring an energy modeling consultant, adding a cost (although this ranges, it is typically on the order of $0.10–$0.50/ft2 depending on the complexity). However, these fees produce high value in terms of design and decision-making assistance, and especially for complex or larger projects can be well worth the investment.
All compliance path options may require both the architectural and engineering teams to take some time in addition to project management to review the prescriptive checklists, fill out the LEED Online credit form, and develop the compliance document.
The architect, mechanical engineer, and lighting designer need to familiarize themselves and confirm compliance with the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007, sections 5–9.
Use simple computer tools like SketchUp and Green Building Studio that are now available with energy analysis plug-ins to generate a first-order estimate of building energy use within a climate context and to identify a design direction. Note that you may need to refer to different software may not be the one used to develop complete the whole building energy simulations necessary for LEED certification.
Energy modeling can inform your project team from the start of design. Early on, review site climate data—such as temperature, humidity and wind, available from most energy software—as a team. Evaluate the site context and the microclimate, noting the effects of neighboring buildings, bodies of water, and vegetation. Estimate the distribution of energy across major end uses (such as space heating and cooling, lighting, plug loads, hot water, and any additional energy uses), targeting high-energy-use areas to focus on during design.
Use a preliminary energy use breakdown like this one to identify target areas for energy savings.Perform preliminary energy modeling in advance of the schematic design phase kick-off meeting or design charrette. The energy use breakdown can help identify targets for energy savings and point toward possible alternatives.
For existing buildings, the baseline energy model can reflect the pre-renovation features like rather than a minimally ASHRAE-compliant building. This will help you achieve additional savings in comparison with the baseline.
Projects generating renewable energy onsite should use Option 1 to best demonstrate EAp2 compliance and maximize points under EAc1. Other options are possible but won’t provide as much benefit. Like any other project, model the baseline case as a system compliant with ASHRAE 90.1-2007, using grid-connected electricity, and the design case is an “as-designed” system also using grid-connected electricity. You then plug in 100% onsite renewable energy in the final energy-cost comparison table, as required by the performance rating method (PRM) or the modeling protocol of ASHRRAE 90.1 2007, Appendix G. (Refer to the sample PRM tables in the Documentation Toolkit for taking account of onsite renewable energy.
LEED divides energy-using systems into two categories:
The energy model itself will not account for any change in plug loads from the baseline case, even if your project is making a conscious effort to purchase Energy Star or other efficient equipment. Any improvement made in plug loads must be documented separately, using the exceptional calculation methodology (ECM), as described in ASHRAE 90.1-2007. These calculations determine the design case energy cost compared to the baseline case. They are included in the performance rating method (PRM) table or directly in the baseline and design case model.
Besides energy modeling, you may need to use the exceptional calculation methodology (ECM) when any of the following situations occur:
Some energy-modeling software tools have a daylight-modeling capability. Using the same model for both energy and IEQc8.1: Daylight and Views—Daylight can greatly reduce the cost of your modeling efforts.
Provide a copy of the AEDG for office, retail, or warehouse, as applicable, to each team member as everyone, including the architect, mechanical and electrical engineers, lighting designer, and commissioning agents, are responsible for ensuring compliance. These are available to download free from the ASHRAE website. (See Resources.)
Find your climate zone before attempting to meet any detailed prescriptive requirements. Climate zones vary by county, so be sure to select the right one. (See the Documentation Toolkit for a list of climate zones by county.)
Develop a checklist of all requirements, and assign responsible team members to accomplish them. Hold a meeting to walk the team through the AEDG checklist for your project’s climate zone. Clarify specific design goals and prescriptive requirements in the OPR for EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning.
Early access to the AEDG by each team member avoids last-minute changes that can have cascading, and costly, effects across many building systems.
The AEDG prescriptive requirements include:
If your project team is not comfortable following these guidelines, consider switching to Option 1, which gives you more flexibility.
Although Option 2 is generally lower cost during the design phase than energy modeling, the compliance path is top heavy—it requires additional meeting time upfront for key design members.
Provide a copy of the New Buildings Institute Advanced Buildings: Core Performance Guide to each team member. The guide is available to download free from the NBI website. (See Resources.)
The guide provides practical design assistance that can be used throughout the design process.
Walk your team through the project checklist to clarify design goals and prescriptive requirements.
The guide provides an outline for approaching an energy-efficient design, in addition to a list of prescriptive measures. The first of its three sections emphasizes process and team interaction rather than specific building systems or features. Advise the owner to read through the guide in order to understand what is required of the architect and engineers.
Section 1 in the guide focuses on best practices that benefit the project during the pre-design and schematic design stages, such as analyzing alternative designs and writing the owner’s project requirements (OPR).
Section 2 of the Core Performance Guide describes architectural, lighting, and mechanical systems to be included. Section 3 is not required for EAp2 but includes additional opportunities for energy savings that can earn EAc1 points.
The guide mandates that your team develop a minimum of three different design concepts to select from for best energy use.
Though they can be a little daunting at first glance, a majority of the guide’s requirements overlap with other LEED credits, such as EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning, IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, and IEQc6.1: Controllability of Systems—Lighting Controls.
This compliance path is top-heavy due to upfront consultant time, but it provides adequate structure to ensure that your project is in compliance with the prerequisite requirements. For some projects it may be less expensive to pursue than Option 1.
The owner should now have finalized the OPR with the support of the architect, as part of the commissioning credits EAp1 and EAc3. The goals identified here will help your team identify energy-reduction and occupant-comfort strategies.
Consider a broad range of energy-efficiency strategies and tools, including passive solar, daylighting, cooling-load reduction, and natural ventilation to reduce heating and cooling loads.
Develop the basis of design (BOD) document in conjunction with your mechanical engineer and architect for EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning, noting key design parameters to help strategize design direction as outlined in the OPR.
The OPR and BOD serve the larger purpose of documenting the owner’s vision and your team’s ideas to meet those goals. The BOD is intended to be a work-in-progress and should be updated at all key milestones in your project. Writing the document gives you an opportunity to capture the owner’s goals, whether just to meet the prerequisite or to achieve points under EAc1.
Confirm that your chosen compliance path is the most appropriate for your project, and make any changes now. Following a review with the design team and owner, ensure that everyone is on board with contracting an energy modeler for Option 1 or meeting all the prescriptive requirements under Options 2 or 3.
Sometimes teams change from Option 1 to Options 2 or 3 very late in the design phase for various reasons including not realizing the cost of energy modeling. Making that change is risky, though: the prescriptive paths are all-or-nothing—you must comply with every item, without exception. Evaluate each requirement and consult with the contractor and estimator to ensure the inclusion of all activities within project management.
To avoid costly, last-minute decisions, develop a comprehensive, component-based cost model as a decision matrix for your project. The model will help establish additional cost requirements for each energy conservation measure. It will also illustrate cost reductions from decreased equipment size, construction rendered unnecessary by energy conservation measures, and reduced architectural provisions for space and equipment access. (See the Documentation Toolkit for an example.)
Use envelope design and passive strategies to reduce the heating and cooling loads prior to detailed design of HVAC systems. Passive strategies can reduce heating and cooling loads, giving the engineer more options, including smaller or innovative systems.
Load reduction requires coordinated efforts by all design members including the architect, lighting designer, interior designer, information-technology manager, and owner.
Involving facilities staff in the design process can further inform key design decisions, helping ensure successful operation and low maintenance costs.
Encourage your design team to brainstorm design innovations and energy-reduction strategies. This provides a communication link among team members so they can make informed decisions.
More energy-efficient HVAC equipment can cost more relative to conventional equipment. However, by reducing heating and cooling loads through good passive design, the mechanical engineer can often reduce the size and cost of the system. Reduced system size can save money through:
Review case studies of similar energy-efficient buildings in the same climate to provide helpful hints for selecting energy-efficiency measures. For example, a building in a heating-dominated climate can often benefit from natural ventilation and free cooling during shoulder seasons. (See Resources for leading industry journals showcasing success stories around the country and internationally.)
The relationship between first costs and operating costs can be complex. For example, more efficient windows will be more expensive, but could reduce the size and cost of mechanical equipment. A more efficient HVAC system may be more expensive, but will reduce operating costs. Play around with variables and different strategies to get the right fit for the building and the owner’s goals as stated in the OPR.
Review and confirm compliance with the mandatory requirements of all the relevant sections of ASHRAE 90.1-2007
Trust your project’s energy modeling task to a mechanical firm with a proven track record in using models as design tools, and experience with your building type.
Contract an energy modeling team for the project. These services may be provided by the mechanical engineering firm on the design team or by an outside consultant. Software used for detailed energy use analysis and submitted for final LEED certification must be accepted by the regulatory authority with jurisdiction, and must comply with paragraph G2.2 of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. Refer to Resources for a list of Department of Energy approved energy-analysis software that may be used for LEED projects.
Design team members, including the architect and mechanical engineer at a minimum, need to work together to identify a percentage improvement goal for project energy use over the ASHRAE 90.1-2007-compliant baseline model. The percentage should be at least 10% to meet the prerequisite.
Plan on initiating energy modeling during the design process, and use it to inform your design—preferably executing several iterations of the design as you improve the modeled energy performance.
Ask the modeling consultant to develop an annual energy-use breakdown—in order to pick the “fattest” targets for energy reduction. A typical energy-use breakdown required for LEED submission and ASHRAE protocol includes:
Identify critical areas in which to reduce loads. For example, in a data center, the plug loads are the largest energy load. Small changes in lighting density might bring down the energy use but represent only a small fraction of annual energy use.
Don't forget that LEED (following ASHRAE) uses energy cost and not straight energy when it compares your design to a base case. That's important because you might choose to use a system that burns natural gas instead of electricity and come out with a lower cost, even though the on-site energy usage in kBtus or kWhs is higher. Generally you have to specify the same fuel in your design case and in the base case, however, so you can't simply switch fuels to show a cost savings
Explore and analyze design alternatives for energy use analyses to compare the cost-effectiveness of your design choices. For example, do you get better overall performance from a better window or from adding a PV panel? Will demand-control ventilation outperform increased ceiling insulation?
Simple, comparative energy analyses of conceptual design forms are useful ways to utilize an energy model at this stage. Sample scenarios include varying the area of east-facing windows and looking at 35% versus 55% glazing. Each scenario can be ranked by absolute energy use to make informed decisions during the design stage.
If your project is using BIM software, the model can be plugged into the energy analysis software to provide quick, real-time results and support better decisions.
Model development should be carried out following the PRM from ASHRAE 90.1-2007, Appendix G, and the LEED 2009 Design and Construction Reference Guide, Table in EAc1. In case of a conflict between ASHRAE and LEED guidelines, follow LEED.
Projects using district energy systems have special requirements. For EAp2, the proposed building must achieve the 10% energy savings without counting the effects of the district generation system. To earn points in EAc1 you can take advantage of the district system’s efficiency, but you have to run the energy model again to claim those benefits (see EAc1 for details).
While you could run the required energy model at the end of the design development phase, simply to demonstrate your prerequisite compliance, you don’t get the most value that way in terms of effort and expense. Instead, do it early in the design phase, and run several versions as you optimize your design. Running the model also gives you an opportunity to make improvements if your project finds itself below the required 10% savings threshold.
The baseline model is the designed building with mechanical systems specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2007, Appendix G, for the specific building type, with a window-to-wall ratio at a maximum of 40%, and minimally code-compliant specifications for the envelope, lighting, and mechanical components. It can be developed as soon as preliminary drawings are completed. The baseline is compared to the design case to provide a percentage of reduction in annual energy use. To avoid any bias from orientation, you need to run the baseline model in each of the four primary directions, and the average serves as your final baseline figure.
The design-case is modeled using the schematic design, orientation, and proposed window-to-wall ratio—¬the model will return design-case annual energy costs. Earn points by demonstrating percentage reductions in annual energy costs from the design to the baseline case. EAp2 is achieved if the design case is 10% lower than the baseline in new construction (or 5% less in existing building renovations).
Provide as much project and design detail to the modeler as possible. A checklist is typically developed by the energy modeler, listing all the construction details of the walls, roof, slabs, windows, mechanical systems, equipment efficiencies, occupancy load, and schedule of operations. Any additional relevant information or design changes should be brought to the modeler’s attention as soon as possible. The more realistic the energy model is, the more accurate the energy use figure, leading to better help with your design.
Invite energy modelers to project meetings. An experienced modeler can often assist in decision-making during design meetings, even without running complete models each time.
All known plug loads must be included in the model. The baseline and design-case models assume identical plug loads. If your project is deliberately attempting to reduce plug loads, demonstrate this by following the exceptional calculation method (ECM), as described in ASHRAE 90.1-2007, G2.5. Incorporate these results in the model to determine energy savings.
For items outside the owner’s control—like lighting layout, fans and pumps—the parameters for the design and baseline models must be identical.
It can take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to generate meaningful energy modeling results. Schedule the due dates for modeling results so that they can inform your design process.
Review the rate structure from your electrical utility. The format can inform your team of the measures likely to be most effective in reducing energy costs, especially as they vary over season, peak load, and additional charges beyond minimum energy use.
Performing a cost-benefit analysis in conjunction with energy modeling can determine payback times for all the energy strategies, helping the iterative design process.
Using energy modeling only to check compliance after the design stage wastes much of the value of the service, and thus your investment.
The architect and mechanical engineer should carefully read the applicable ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide for office, warehouse, or retail projects, as applicable.
Keep the owner abreast of the design decisions dictated by the standard. Fill in the team-developed checklist, within the climate zone table’s prescribed requirements, with appropriate envelope improvements, system efficiencies, and a configuration that meets the standard requirements.
As a prescriptive path, this option relies heavily on following the requirement checklist, which is used throughout the design process to track progress. To assist design development, provide all critical team members—not limited to the architect, mechanical and electrical engineers, and lighting designer—with a checklist highlighting their appointed tasks.
The architect, mechanical engineer, and lighting designer need to discuss each requirement and its design ramifications. Hold these meetings every six to eight weeks to discuss progress and make sure all requirements are being met.
Confirm that your project team is comfortable with following all the prescribed requirements. If not, switch to Option 1: Whole Building Energy Simulation.
The LEED Online credit form does not specify how to document each prescriptive requirement because they are so different for each project; it only requires a signed confirmation by the MEP for meeting AEDG requirements. You still have to provide documentation. Submit your checklist of requirements, and supporting information for each item, through LEED Online to make your case. If your project fails to meet even one requirement, it will fail to earn the prerequisite, thus jeopardizing LEED certification.
Although energy modeling consultant costs are avoided by this option, additional staff time will be required to document and track compliance status, as compared with conventional projects.
Energy efficiency measures prescribed by the guide can be perceived as additional costs in comparison with conventional projects. However, they are easy to implement and are cost-effective pn the whole.
Become familiar with the Core Performance Guide early in the design phase to know the multiple requirements and all requisite documents.
Note that the guide demands additional time, attention, and integrated process from the design team as compared to conventional projects. It’s not just a list of prescriptive requirements, but a prescribed process for achieving energy efficiency goals. LEED Online documentation requires proof of all steps outlined in Sections 1 and 2, including three conceptual design options and meeting minutes. The project manager, architect, and mechanical engineer should read the complete Core Performance Guide carefully to know beforehand the prescriptive requirements in Sections 1 and 2.
The project manager must take responsibility for ensuring that the requirement checklist is on track.
For Section 3, the design team needs to identify three or more of the listed strategies as possible targets for the project.
Create a checklist of requirements and assign a responsible party to each item.
The Core Performance Guide requires an integrated design contributed by the architect, mechanical and electrical engineers, and lighting designer. The project manager must take responsibility for shepherding and documenting the collaborative process to demonstrate compliance.
A long documentation list can be overwhelming for your team, so create a detailed checklist with tasks delegated to individual team members, allowing each member to focus on assigned tasks. The checklist can function as a status tracking document and, finally, the deliverable for LEED Online.
The architect and engineer, and other project team members, continue to develop a high-performance building envelope with efficient mechanical and lighting systems.
Constant communication and feedback among project team members, owner, and if possible, operational staff, during design development can minimize construction as well as operational costs and keep your project on schedule.
If you change or go through value-engineering on any specifications, such as the solar-heat gain coefficient of glazing, for example, be aware of impacts on mechanical system sizing. Making changes like this might not pay off as much as it first appears.
Consider using building information modeling (BIM) tools to keep design decisions up to date and well documented for all team members.
Schedule delays can be avoided if all team members share their ideas and update documents during the design development process.
The modeler completes the energy analysis of the selected design and system and offers alternative scenarios for discussion. The modeler presents the energy cost reduction results to the team, identifying the LEED threshold achieved.
It’s helpful for the energy modeling report to include a simple payback analysis to assist the owner in making an informed decision on the operational savings of recommended features.
The architect and HVAC engineer should agree on the design, working with the cost estimator and owner.
Demonstrating reductions in non-regulated loads requires a rigorous definition of the baseline case. The loads must be totally equivalent, in terms of functionality, to the proposed design case. For example, reducing the number of computers in the building does not qualify as a legitimate reduction in non-regulated loads. However, the substitution of laptops for desktop computers, and utilization of flat-screen displays instead of CRTs for the same number of computers, may qualify as a reduction.
Residential and hospitality projects that use low-flow showers, lavatories, and kitchen sinks (contributing to WEp1) benefit from lower energy use due to reduced overall demand for hot water. However, for energy-savings calculations, these are considered process loads that must be modeled as identical in baseline and design cases, or you have the choice of demonstrating the savings with ECM for process loads.
Perform daylight calculations in conjunction with energy modeling to balance the potentially competing goals of more daylight versus higher solar-heat gain resulting in high cooling loads.
If your project is pursuing renewable energy, the energy generated is accounted for by using the PRM. These results provide information about whether the energy is contributing to EAc2: Onsite Renewable Energy.
A cost-benefit analysis can help the owner understand the return on investment of big-ticket, energy-conserving equipment that lowers operating energy bills with a quick payback.
Complete at least half of the energy modeling effort by the end of the design development stage. Help the design team to finalize strategy through intensive, early efforts in energy modeling. Once the team has a design direction, the modeler can develop a second model during the construction documents phase for final confirmation.
If pursuing ECM for non-regulated loads, calculate energy saving for each measure separately if you are, for example, installing an energy-efficient elevator instead of a typical one so that the reduction would contribute to total building energy savings. Calculate the anticipated energy use of the typical elevator in kBTUs or kWh. Using the same occupancy load, calculate the energy use of the efficient elevator. Incorporate the savings into design case energy use within the PRM. Refer to the ECM strategy for detailed calculation guidelines.
Ensure that all prescriptive requirements are incorporated into the design by the end of the design development stage.
Revisit the Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDG) checklist to ensure that the design meets the prescriptive requirements.
The mechanical engineer, lighting consultant, and architect revisit the checklist for an update on the requirements and how they are being integrated into the design. All prescriptive requirements should be specifically incorporated into the design by the end of the design development phase.
The mechanical engineer and architect track the status of each requirement.
While the LEED Online credit form does not require detailed documentation for each Core Performance Guide requirement, it is important that each item be documented as required and reviewed by the rest of the team to confirm compliance, especially as further documentation may be requested by during review. Your design team should work with the owner to identify cost-effective strategies from Section 3 that can be pursued for the project.
Construction documents clearly detail the architectural and mechanical systems that address energy-efficiency strategies.
Confirm that specifications and the bid package integrate all equipment and activities associated with the project.
If the project goes through value engineering, refer to the OPR and BOD to ensure that no key comfort, health, productivity, daylight, or life-cycle cost concerns are sacrificed.
During the budget estimating phase, the project team may decide to remove some energy-saving strategies that have been identified as high-cost items during the value-engineering process. However, it is very important to help the project team understand that these so-called add-ons are actually integral to the building’s market value and the owner’s goals.
Removing an atrium, for example, due to high cost may provide additional saleable floor area, but may also reduce daylight penetration while increasing the lighting and conditioning loads.
Although this prerequisite is a design-phase submittal, it may make sense to submit it, along with EAc1, after construction. Your project could undergo changes during construction that might compel a new run of the energy model to obtain the latest energy-saving information. Waiting until the completion of construction ensures that the actual designed project is reflected in your energy model.
Create a final energy model based completely on construction document drawings—to confirm actual energy savings as compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements. An energy model based on the construction documents phase will provide realistic energy-cost savings and corresponding LEED points likely to be earned.
Make sure the results fit the LEED Online credit form requirements. For example, the unmet load hours have to be less than 300 and process loads will raise a red flag if they’re not approximately 25%. If any of the results are off mark, take time to redo the model. Time spent in design saves more later on in the LEED review process.
Finalize all design decisions and confirm that you’ve met all of the prescriptive requirements. Your team must document the checklist with relevant project drawings, including wall sections, specifications, and the MEP drawing layout.
Value engineering and other factors can result in design changes that eliminate certain energy features relevant to the prerequisite. As this compliance path is prescriptive, your project cannot afford to drop even one prescribed item.
Value engineering and other factors can result in design changes that eliminate certain energy features relevant to the credit. As this compliance path is prescriptive, your project cannot afford to drop even one listed item. Although perceived as high-cost, prescriptive requirements lower energy costs during operation and provide a simple payback structure.
The architect and mechanical engineer review the shop drawings to confirm the installation of the selected systems.
The commissioning agent and the contractor conduct functional testing of all mechanical equipment in accordance with EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning and EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning.
Find your Energy Star rating with EPA’s Target Finder tool if your building type is in the database. Input your project location, size, and number of occupants, computers, and kitchen appliances. The target may be a percentage energy-use reduction compared to a code-compliant building, or “anticipated energy use” data from energy model results. Add information about your fuel use and rate, then click to “View Results.” Your Target Finder score should be documented at LEED Online.
Plan for frequent site visits by the mechanical designer and architect during construction and installation to make sure construction meets the design intent and specifications.
Emphasize team interaction and construction involvement when defining the project scope with key design team members. Contractor and designer meetings can help ensure correct construction practices and avoid high change-order costs for the owner.
Subcontractors may attempt to add a premium during the bidding process for any unusual or unknown materials or practices, so inform your construction bidders of any atypical design systems at the pre-bid meeting.
The energy modeler ensures that any final design changes have been incorporated into the updated model.
Upon finalizing of the design, the responsible party or energy modeler completes the LEED Online submittal with building design inputs and a PRM result energy summary.
Although EAp2 is a design phase submittals, it may make sense to submit it (along with EAc1) after construction. Your project could undergo changes during construction that might require a new run of the energy model. Waiting until the completion of construction ensures that your actual designed project is reflected. On the other hand, it gives you less opportunity to respond to questions that might come up during a LEED review.
Include supporting documents like equipment cut sheets, specifications and equipment schedules to demonstrate all energy efficiency measures claimed in the building.
It common for the LEED reviewers to make requests for more information. Go along with the process—it doesn’t mean that you’ve lost the credit. Provide as much information for LEED Online submittal as requested and possible.
The design team completes the LEED Online documentation, signing off on compliance with the applicable AEDG, and writing the narrative report on the design approach and key highlights.
During LEED submission, the project team needs to make an extra effort to support the prerequisite with the completed checklist and the required documents. Although the LEED rating system does not list detailed documentation, it is best practice to send in supporting documents for the prescriptive requirements from the AEDG. The supporting documents should include relevant narratives, wall sections, mechanical drawings, and calculations.
Although the LEED Online sign-off does not include a checklist of AEDG requirements, it assumes that the team member is confirming compliance with all detailed requirements of the guide.
The design team completes the LEED Online credit form, signing off on compliance with the Core Performance Guide, and writing the narrative report on the design approach and key highlights.
During LEED submission, your project team needs to make an extra effort to support the prerequisite with the completed checklist and the required documents. Although not every requirement may be mentioned in the LEED documentation, the supporting documents need to cover all requirements with narratives, wall sections, mechanical drawings, and calculations.
Many of this option’s compliance documents are common to other LEED credits or design documents, thus reducing duplicated efforts.
Develop an operations manual with input from the design team in collaboration with facility management and commissioning agent if pursuing EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning.
The benefit of designing for energy efficiency is realized only during operations and maintenance. Record energy use to confirm that your project is saving energy as anticipated. If you are not pursuing EAc5: Measurement and Verification, you can implement tracking procedures such as reviewing monthly energy bills or on-the-spot metering.
Some energy efficiency features may require special training for operations and maintenance personnel. For example, cogeneration and building automation systems require commissioning and operator training. Consider employing a trained professional to aid in creating operation manuals for specialty items.
Energy-efficiency measures with a higher first cost often provide large savings in energy use and operational energy bills. These credit requirements are directly tied to the benefits of efficient, low-cost operations.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
To establish the minimum level of energy efficiency for the proposed building and systems to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use.
Demonstrate a 10% improvement in the proposed building performance rating for new buildings, or a 5% improvement in the proposed building performance rating for major renovations to existing buildings, compared with the baseline building performanceBaseline building performance is the annual energy cost for a building design, used as a baseline for comparison with above-standard design. rating.
Calculate the baseline building performance rating according to the building performance rating method in Appendix G of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 (with errata but without addenda1) using a computer simulation model for the whole building project. Projects outside the U.S. may use a USGBC approved equivalent standard2.
Appendix G of Standard 90.1-2007 requires that the energy analysis done for the building performance rating method include all energy costs associated with the building project. To achieve points using this credit, the proposed design must meet the following criteria:
For the purpose of this analysis, process energy is considered to include, but is not limited to, office and general miscellaneous equipment, computers, elevators and escalators,kitchen cooking and refrigeration, laundry washing and drying, lighting exempt from the lighting power allowance (e.g., lighting integral to medical equipment) and other (e.g., waterfall pumps).
Regulated (non-process) energy includes lighting (for the interior, parking garage, surface parking, façade, or building grounds, etc. except as noted above), heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) (for space heating, space cooling, fans, pumps, toilet exhaust, parking garage ventilation, kitchen hood exhaust, etc.), and service water heating for domestic or space heating purposes.
Process loads must be identical for both the baseline building performance rating and the proposed building performance rating. However, project teams may follow the exceptional calculation method (ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 G2.5) or USGBC approved equivalent to document measures that reduce process loads. Documentation of process load energy savings must include a list of the assumptions made for both the base and the proposed design, and theoretical or empirical information supporting these assumptions.
Projects in California may use Title 24-2005, Part 6 in place of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 for Option 1.
Comply with the prescriptive measures of the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide appropriate to the project scope, outlined below. Project teams must comply with all applicable criteria as established in the Advanced Energy Design Guide for the climate zoneOne of five climatically distinct areas, defined by long-term weather conditions which affect the heating and cooling loads in buildings. The zones were determined according to the 45-year average (1931-1975) of the annual heating and cooling degree-days (base 65 degrees Fahrenheit). An individual building was assigned to a climate zone according to the 45-year average annual degree-days for its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Division. in which the building is located. Projects outside the U.S. may use ASHRAE/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Appendices B and D to determine the appropriate climate zone.
The building must meet the following requirements:
Comply with the prescriptive measures identified in the Advanced Buildings™ Core Performance™ Guide developed by the New Buildings Institute. The building must meet the following requirements:
Projects outside the U.S. may use ASHRAE/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Appendices B and D to determine the appropriate climate zone.
1Project teams wishing to use ASHRAE approved addenda for the purposes of this prerequisite may do so at their discretion. Addenda must be applied consistently across all LEED credits.
2 Projects outside the U.S. may use an alternative standard to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 if it is approved by USGBC as an equivalent standard using the process located at www.usgbc.org/leedisglobal
Design the building envelope and systems to meet baseline requirements. Use a computer simulation model to assess the energy performance and identify the most cost-effective energy efficiency measures. Quantify energy performance compared with a baseline building.
If local code has demonstrated quantitative and textual equivalence following, at a minimum, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) standard process for commercial energy code determination, then the results of that analysis may be used to correlate local code performance with ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. Details on the DOE process for commercial energy code determination can be found at http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/ determinations_com.stm.
1 Project teams wishing to use ASHRAE approved addenda for the purposes of this prerequisite may do so at their discretion. Addenda must be applied consistently across all LEED credits.
2 Projects outside the U.S. may use an alternative standard to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1‐2007 if it is approved by USGBC as an equivalent standard using the process located at www.usgbc.org/leedisglobal
This database shows state-by-state incentives for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other green building measures. Included in this database are incentives on demand control ventilation, ERVs, and HRVs.
Useful web resource with information on local/regional incentives for energy-efficiency programs.
ACEEE is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency through technical and policy assessments; advising policymakers and program managers; collaborating with businesses, public interest groups, and other organizations; and providing education and outreach through conferences, workshops, and publications.
The New Buildings Institute is a nonprofit, public-benefits corporation dedicated to making buildings better for people and the environment. Its mission is to promote energy efficiency in buildings through technology research, guidelines, and codes.
The Building Energy Codes program provides comprehensive resources for states and code users, including news, compliance software, code comparisons, and the Status of State Energy Codes database. The database includes state energy contacts, code status, code history, DOE grants awarded, and construction data. The program is also updating the COMcheck-EZ compliance tool to include ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1–2007. This compliance tool includes the prescriptive path and trade-off compliance methods. The software generates appropriate compliance forms as well.
Research center at RPI provides access to a wide range of daylighting resources, case studies, design tools, reports, publications and more.
International association of energy modelers with various national and local chapters.
Non-profit organization aiming at design community to increase collaboration for designing energy efficient buildings.
The Low Impact Hydropower Institute is a non-profit organization and certification body that establishes criteria against which to judge the environmental impacts of hydropower projects in the United States.
The Building Technologies Program (BTP) provides resources for commercial and residential building components, energy modeling tools, building energy codes, and appliance standards including the Buildings Energy Data Book, High Performance Buildings Database and Software Tools Directory.
This website discusses the step-by-step process for energy modeling.
This online resource, supported by Natural Resources Canada, presents energy-efficient technologies, strategies for commercial buildings, and pertinent case studies.
This website is a comprehensive resource for U.S. Department of Energy information on energy efficiency and renewable energy and provides access to energy links and downloadable documents.
Information on cogenerationThe simultaneous production of electric and thermal energy in on-site, distributed energy systems; typically, waste heat from the electricity generation process is recovered and used to heat, cool, or dehumidify building space. Neither generation of electricity without use of the byproduct heat, nor waste-heat recovery from processes other than electricity generation is included in the definition of cogeneration., also called combined heat and power, is available from EPA through the CHPCombined heat and power (CHP), or cogeneration, generates both electrical power and thermal energy from a single fuel source. Partnership. The CHP Partnership is a voluntary program seeking to reduce the environmental impact of power generation by promoting the use of CHP. The Partnership works closely with energy users, the CHP industry, state and local governments, and other clean energy stakeholders to facilitate the development of new projects and to promote their environmental and economic benefits.
Free download of AHSRAE energy savings guide, use for Option 2.
Research warehouse for strategies and case studies of energy efficiency in buildings.
An online window selection tool with performance characteristics.
This website lays out design process for developing an energy efficient building.
This website discusses ways to improve design for lower energy demand as they relate to the AIA 2030 challenge.
This website includes discussion of design issues, materials and assemblies, window design decisions and case studies.
This site lists multiple web-based and downloadable tools that can be used for energy analyses.
This database is maintainted by the California Energy Commission and lists resources related to energy use and efficiency.
Energy design tools are available to be used for free online or available to download.
This website lists performance characteristics for various envelope materials.
This is an online forum of discussion for energy efficiency, computer model software users.
Target Finder is a goal-setting tool that informs your design team about their project’s energy performance as compared to a national database of projects compiled by the EPA.
This directory provides information on 406 building software tools for evaluating energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability in buildings.
Weather data for more than 2100 locations are available in EnergyPlus weather format.
Weather data for U.S. and Non-U.S. locations in BIN format.
A web-based, free content project by IBPSA-USA to develop an online compendium of the domain of Building Energy Modeling (BEM). The intention is to delineate a cohesive body of knowledge for building energy modeling.
A guide for achieving energy efficiency in new commercial buildings, referenced in the LEED energy credits.
This manual is a strategic guide for planning and implementing energy-saving building upgrades. It provides general methods for reviewing and adjusting system control settings, plus procedures for testing and correcting calibration and operation of system components such as sensors, actuators, and controlled devices.
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 and the initial release of formal guidance for LEED v2009.
This manual offers guidance to building energy modelers, ensuring technically rigorous and credible assessment of energy performance of commercial and multifamily residential buildings. It provides a streamlined process that can be used with various existing modeling software and systems, across a range of programs.
Chapter 19 is titled, “Energy Estimating and Modeling Methods”. The chapter discusses methods for estimating energy use for two purposes: modeling for building and HVAC system design and associated design optimization (forward modeling), and modeling energy use of existing buildings for establishing baselines and calculating retrofit savings (data-driven modeling).
Required reference document for DES systems in LEED energy credits.
ASHRAE writes standards for the purpose of establishing consensus for: 1) methods of test for use in commerce and 2) performance criteria for use as facilitators with which to guide the industry.
Energy statistics from the U.S. government.
This guide includes instructional graphics and superior lighting design solutions for varying types of buildings and spaces, from private offices to big box retail stores.
This website offers information on energy efficiency in buildings, highlighting success stories, breakthrough technology, and policy updates.
Bimonthly publication on case studies and new technologies for energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
AIA publication highlighting local and state green building incentives.
2008 guidelines and performance goals from the National Science and Technology Council.
Information about energy-efficient building practices available in EDR's Design Briefs, Design Guidelines, Case Studies, and Technology Overviews.
DOE tools for whole building analyses, including energy simulation, load calculation, renewable energy, retrofit analysis and green buildings tools.
This is a computer program that predicts the one-dimensional transfer of heat and moisture.
DesignBuilder is a Graphical User Interface to EnergyPlus. DesignBuilder is a complete 3-D graphical design modeling and energy use simulation program providing information on building energy consumption, CO2Carbon dioxide emissions, occupant comfort, daylighting effects, ASHRAE 90.1 and LEED compliance, and more.
IES VE Pro is an integrated computing environment encompassing a wide range of tasks in building design including model building, energy/carbon, solar, light, HVAC, climate, airflow, value/cost and egress.
Use this checklist of prescriptive requirements (with sample filled out) to have an at-a-glance picture of AEDG requirements for Option 2, and how your project is meeting them.
This spreadsheet lists all the requirements for meeting EAp2 – Option 3 and and EAc1 – Option 3. You can review the requirements, assign responsible parties and track status of each requirement through design and construction.
Sometimes the energy simulation software being used to demonstrate compliance with Option 1 doesn't allow you to simulate key aspects of the design. In this situation you'll need to write a short sample narrative, as in these examples, describing the situation and how it was handled.
In your supporting documentation, include spec sheets of equipment described in the Option 1 energy model or Options 2–3 prescriptive paths.
This is a sample building energy performance and cost summary using the Performance Rating Method (PRM). Electricity and natural gas use should be broken down by end uses including space heating, space cooling, lights, task lights, ventilation fans, pumps, and domestic hot water, at the least.
Option 1 calculates savings in annual energy cost, but utility prices may vary over the course of a year. This sample demonstrates how to document varying electricity tariffs.
This graph, for an office building design, shows how five overall strategies were implemented to realize energy savings of 30% below an ASHRAE baseline. (From modeling conducted by Synergy Engineering, PLLC.)
The climate zones shown on this Department of Energy map are relevant to all options for this credit.
This spreadsheet, provided here by 7group, can be used to calculate the fan volume and fan power for Appendix G models submitted for EAp2/EAc1. Tabs are included to cover both ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007 Appendix G methodologies.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each NC-2009 EA credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms (newest):
Version 3 forms:
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictsions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
Documentation for this credit can be part of a Design Phase submittal.
I am working on a multifamily building. The proposed system is a Rooftop unit with constant vlume and 100% outdoor air. No return or exhaust and a set SA CFM.
My question is whether in this case, since the supply air and the ventilation CFM are equal; I should model the baseline supply air CFM with the calculated CFM, based on the 20 degree delta T, or using the same SA CFM as in the proposed building.
The baseline needs to follow the Appendix G rules. So it is a system 1 or 2 and it needs to be auto-sized by the software according to G220.127.116.11.
1) Assume the same scheduling is used in both design and baseline case, may I schedule lights to be off during occupied hours in a zone (both baseline and design models)?
2) Taking this a step further, can I model a control (in both baseline and designcase) that will mimick occupant behaviour to turn off lighting when a target luxMeasurement of lumens per square meter. level has been reached in the zone?
1) Schedule the lighting based on the expected occupancy pattern. If the lights in a certain area would normally be off then schedule it that way.
2) I assume you are talking about a control that responds to daylight. If so this is a viable control strategy and you can claim savings. So the "schedule" does not have to be identical if that is the only way you can model the savings (do an exceptional calculation). In many energy modeling software you can model such a control directly (keeping the schedules the same and avoiding the exceptional calculation).
I am purposefully trying NOT to take "credit" for switching the lighting off, because I have no "automated" control. I would make use of the lighting level control functionality of energyplus to model user behaviour to switch the lights off when my near passive house zone is receiving many thousands of watts of direct solar radiation to avoid the useless extra light from the electric light and save some energy and avoid overheating this solar sensitive space.
Theoretically schedules are free to define as long as they are the same for the baseline, right? But is automated control used to model user behaviour (the same control in both baseline and design) allowed?
Take it a step further and apply the same logic to blinds that are user operated, or windows that are opened for natural ventilation.
I think you are getting my question...
Always helpful to understand the motivation behind the questions!
Technically you are correct about the schedules and manual controls. Table G3.1 does indicate that the schedules must be typical and are subject to approval by the rating authority (GBCI). The reality is that schedules are typically not submitted or reviewed for LEED so no one would likely question it. Using automated control (a schedule) to simulate user behavior is technically not allowed but since you are keeping the schedules the same it would likely be acceptable.
One could certainly argue that you are modeling the building as accurately as you can. So if there is a conflict with the "rules" I tend to vote for the accuracy.
Thanks Marcus. I hate being an experimental rat, but in this particular case, I may need to.
A related question...if it turns out that my naturally ventilated building with radiant floor heating manages to get under 300 hours for the heating loads not met hours (assuming the cooling setpoint is set to some high setpoint so as to not turn on and I'm just concerned with heating load not met hours), it is more than likely that the unmet load hours from the baseline case is much less than that of my designcase model, simply because heating with air is much faster response time wise than radiant surface heating, i.e. the differential is very likely to exceed the required 50 hours.
May it be valid to decrease the heating sizing parameter of the baseline case to something less than 1.25, to increase the unmet load hours until they are within 50 of the designcase model?
I know this stuff is not exactly in the standard. Just like to hear your opinion.
You are allowed to do so based on G18.104.22.168. Make sure you have tried everything else first before reducing baseline capacities as this should be your last resort to get the unmet load hours in alignment. I reviewed a project recently where the capacities were reduced well under 100% and it calls into question the accuracy of the proposed design.
Awesome! Downward adjustment...who would have thought. Of course, your worries are the same as mine. Thanks for sharing your experience, Marcus. This means so much to the community of struggling young engineers.
I’m currently working on a LEED NCv2009 project located in Spain. My question is about the compliance of the section 10.4.1 (Electric Motors) of ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Should an European building comply with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 1992?
Thank you very much.
Electric motors must meet the requirements in the efficiency table regardless of the location of the project. Keep in mind that there a various exemptions from the efficiency requirements for electric motors. They must be base mounted, single speed, 3 phase, etc..
I Thought I have seen somewhere that the equivalence with the energy Policy Act is that the motors should be at least IE2 class.
We have the project of to 250,000 sq ft. The Air conditioned area is only 50,000 sq.ft. The rest is enclosed unconditioned area (No HVAC) of 200,000 sq.ft. What area should we use to determined the baseline system 1-8. it seems unfare to use 250,000 sq.ft.
Use the area of the conditioned space.
I have a new bubilding which will be mostly a performing arts theater and school gymnasium. Because these two spaces make up well over half of the building, my annual proccess energy costs are not greater than or equal to 25% of the total energy costs for the proposed design. In fact they are only 9%. Do I need to use an exceptional calculation or can I write a narrative explaining that the type of building I have would never have the amount of process loads needed to achieve the 25%?
If I need to us an exceptional calculation does anyone have any suggestions of how to accomplish this?
Not all projects will have at least 25% process loads; that number is simply representative of a "typical" amount. If your project has less, indicate through a narrative why that is so. Exceptional Calculation Methods are for claiming savings from the process loads, and are necessary when the percent process load differs between the baseline and proposed models.
We have a project where the Central Plant, consisting of a geothermal heat exchanger, is considered to provide energy to more buildings than the building seeking LEED certification.
Could this be considered as a building using purchased heating and cooling from a district energy system and therefore to be handled according to Addenda ai?
I don't think so. Your situation is not really purchased heating or cooling. Neither hot water, nor chilled water is used in the system, it is a heat exchanger.
Thanks for the answer. How should we consider this system in that case? Do we need to take into consideration the other buildings which are using this heat exchanger to the total efficiency of the Central Plant?
I think you would just model the portion of the well field associated with the project in question.
We are working on a project which is mixed use facility (6 storey/G+5) . The first & 2nd floor is used for office & remaining for residential.
Please guide how to select baseline HVAC system as per ASHRAE 90.1.
The residential is System 1 or 2. For the office see if G3.1.1 Exception a applies. If so then enter Table G3.1.1A with the office area and fuel type and select the system type. If not the whole building is system 1 or 2.
As you know additional requirements from LEED led to purchased heat water coils being substituted for furnis heat coils in some unitary systems. 90.1-2007 therefore had requirements for the hot water pumps only for systems that normaly have hot water, such as 1, 5 and 7.
Consider that I am using 90.1-2007, but have purchased heat...as there is no pump requirement, should I
1) use that of 90.1-2010
2) use the proposed case pump power and scale the rated pressure rise acordingly with the baseline auto-sized flowrates and the required motor efficiency.
I vote for 2) as I'm using 2007 consistantly. I tested it with the 2010 requirement and the pump power would decrease by about 20%.
We vote for 2 as well. The baseline W/GPM should be identical to the proposed.
We are working on a library project that involves the renovation of an existing facility, and the addition of a new wing. Both are included in the LEED scope of work, and all existing mechanical equipment will be replaced as part of the project. (The addition will double the size of the existing building)
I initially labelled the project as "Major Renovation" and indicated the amount of "Addition Floor Area" assuming the excel template would pro-rate the EAp2 credits achieved. However, when I change the addition floor area there appears to be no change in credits awarded. Does this mean the template is calculating points based solely on the "Major Renovation" requirements alone? Our energy modeller wants to provide his own excel sheet that will pro-rate the credits based on square footage of new, and square footage of existing, but this means our LEED document will not accuretely represent total credits achieved.
Any thoughts on how best to approach this?
(This is based on the CaGBC's version of NC2009 - my apologies if there is any difference w/ USGBC)
Not sure about the Canadian system but the form in the US system automatically calculates the proper percentage based on the ratio of new and existing.
A difficalt case: Radiant floor + Nat Vent
LEED increased ventilation credit requires that when using the macroscopic airflow simulation compliance path for naturally ventilated spaces:
1) 90% of the occupied spacesOccupied Spaces are defined as enclosed spaces that can accommodate human activities. Occupied spaces are further classified as regularly occupied or non-regularly occupied spaces based on the duration of the occupancy, individual or multi-occupant based on the quantity of occupants, and densely or non-densely occupied spaces based upon the concentration of occupants in the space. are prooven to be able to provide the required ventilation requirements as per the chosen standard (normally 62.1)
2) these ventilation requirements should also be consistantly applied to the energy model of EAp2 (note only occupied spaces are considered)
3) LEED has additional exhaust requirements for contaminated spaces (if IAQc5 is aimed for), which must also be considered by the increased ventilation credit and EAp2
Q) what ODA and or Exhaust requirements should be applied to the model in EAp2 to non- and regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building. (that are spaces without harmfull contaminants)?
E.g. WC, kitchen. Typically, naturally ventilated WCs and kitchens won't be expected to have ACHThe number of times per hour a volume of air, equivalent to the volume of space, enters that space. quite as high as 62.1 or is mech exhaust required for those space type examples?
Q2) How does this tie in with the baseline system type required in the proposed case to provide the missing conditioning system (in this case cooling)?
Q3) how does Appx G handle system types and space ventilation rates for the baseline where in the proposed design there are only exhaust fans, but with hydronic heating?
Regarding natural ventilation - are you wanting to claim energy saving credit for a natural ventilation system or are you talking about the natural ventilation through operable windows in ASHRAE 62?
Q - Assuming the ASHRAE 62 type of nat vent, you basically model infiltration and no exhaust in most spaces. In the areas with harmful contaminants mechanical ventilation would be required by ASHRAE 62.
Q2 - Ventilation is separate in the baseline if it is separate in the design and you do not model one if you do not have one installed. I think that the requirement to add a system that does not exist in the proposed is just plain busywork. You can always get around it having an effect on your model by adjusting the temperature settings.
Q3 - The baseline system type is still from G3.1.1 and is not based on the proposed air or heating distribution systems. The space ventilation rates still need to be identical.
So are you saying that for a 62.1 Nat Vent compliant model, I should model ventilation rates as zero (oda requirements = zero) and only infiltration (infiltration is what happens when all windows/doors are closed, whereas Natural Ventilation is what happens when you open a window).
If you are saying (and I hope you are not) that I should model Natural Ventilation, then I would say that
1) this can only be believably done using CO2Carbon dioxide and temperature to anticipate user behaviour on a minute by minute bases and that wild temperature swings (especially in winter) will play havoc with unmetloadhours.
2) This model would have to incorporate when users close windows due to too high air change rates (and incorporate wind velocities).
3) The baseline building windows would have to be the same size to allow the same venting possibility, but may not vent the same or at the same time if using the same control algorithms. It would also require that only non-operable windows may be size adjusted to meet the 40% WWR.
How do I know this? Because I have tried on and off over the last 3 years to do this for an exceptional calculation methodology.
Section 6 of 62.1 says "This section is not required for natural ventilation systems;" This will also affect the exhaust requirements for WCs and Kitchens.
In the case of WCs, they WCs don't even need the 4% of net occupiable floor area for window opening area, as the net occupiable floor area is zero (it is not an occupiable space as per the definition in the standard).
It looks like I will be resetting all my ODA requirements to zero.
You said "In the areas with harmful contaminants mechanical ventilation would be required by ASHRAE 62." I don't think this is the case for a naturally ventilated space as they exclude section 6. Could you point me to the relavent section in 62.1 (I know this is a requirement of IAQc5, but I don't find it in 62.1).
The mechanical ventilation rates would be zero if you do not have any mechanical ventilation in the design. You should model natural ventilation since it has an impact on the loads and it should be identical in both cases. You would only need to do the exceptional calculation if you are claiming savings related to natural ventilation.
1) do not schedule the windows to open when outdoor conditions would require the operation of the HVAC systems.
2) yes this would need to be scheduled
3) Good point. Make sure that the operable window area is identical.
That is what happens when you answer a question off the top of your head.
You are correct that 62.1 does not require mechanical ventilation for areas with harmful contaminants.
Our interpretation of occupiable space, based on the definition, would be that WCs are occupiable spaces and therefore require ventilation.
Thanks for your inputs, Marcus. Greatly appreaciated.
Hi Group, I have a project with only Radiant Floor Heating with Natural Ventilation. I have modeled both baseline and proposed with the baseline HVAC for cooling (the missing system). However, because of the large internal masses, the responsiveness of the radiant system is far slower than that of an air heating system such as in the baseline. This gives me 0 unmetloadhours for the baseline case, but 290 unmetloadhours for the proposed design case. Although I find the unmetloadhours in bounds at under 300, the differential with the baseline is more than 50. Increasing the capacity of the system has no effect, obviously...a radiant surface at max temp can only have a certain maximum heat transfer due to free convection limitations.
Q) is it therefore the "right" thing to do to include the heating system of the baseline to catch these small unmetloadhours? Or should I try and explain away the large deviation between designcase and baseline case for unmetloadhours for heating?
Hello Jean, I solved a similar problem working with the control of the radiant floor. It was something similar: during the night the setpoint temperature was 15°C and since the 9.00 the setpoint temperature was 20°C. The problem with the not met sepoint temperatures was during the morning, therefore I anticipated the “diurnal mode” of the heated floor in the last hours of the night (obviously without changing the zone setpoint temperature; the practical way to solve the problem depends on the used software).
Because of the thermal inertia of the heated floor I was able to anticipate the “night mode” in the afternoon.
Probably also increasing (in a reasonable way) the supply water temperature could help.
I don’t know if working with the control system could be useful in your case. Perhaps your problem depends on too high natural ventilation rates, even when there are very cold outdoor temperatures. In that case you should try changing the management of natural ventilation.
I think that the resolution of the problem depends a lot on the used software. Maybe a discussion in the maling list of EnergyPlus could be interesting :-)
It's a bit more complicated...the culprit rooms are rooms that require per ashrae have high exhaust rate requirements, like a kitchen or WC. The makeup air is currently comming from outside...perhaps the solution is to have the makeup air come from adjacent rooms and setting the AHU1.Air-handling units (AHUs) are mechanical indirect heating, ventilating, or air-conditioning systems in which the air is treated or handled by equipment located outside the rooms served, usually at a central location, and conveyed to and from the rooms by a fan and a system of distributing ducts. (NEEB, 1997 edition)
2.A type of heating and/or cooling distribution equipment that channels warm or cool air to different parts of a building. This process of channeling the conditioned air often involves drawing air over heating or cooling coils and forcing it from a central location through ducts or air-handling units. Air-handling units are hidden in the walls or ceilings, where they use steam or hot water to heat, or chilled water to cool the air inside the ductwork. for these spaces to circulation only. I'll give it a go.
Actually, thermodynamically it makes little difference where the extra ODA is heated, and for the additional effort, I think I'll just include the 2nd system for now.
Just an update...as the real ODA requirement for my tested WC is zero, I have found that giving the system 3 cooling system a outdoor air requirement of zero, whilst simultaneously pulling the make up air of the required exhaust rate from the adjacent space seems to solve my problem.
We received an comment review about a system 6 (PVAV w/ PFP boxes) baseline model in eQuest: The SV-A reports indicates that the cooling efficiencies for the HVAC systems were not correctly reflected in the Baseline model and the supply fan energy has not been broken out as required (per G 22.214.171.124). We responded with a revised EIR (not eQuest Default calculation) and a narrative explaining the deduction steps. But it again was denied by the reviewer.
My question is, in the appealing, am I supposed to keep fixating on the EIR calculation, or is there any other evidence of fan power being broken out in the SV-A report that I neglected before? Many thanks
The EIR value is the only thing in the SV-A report that addresses the break out of fan power. Perhaps the issue is not using the eQUEST default calculation. So keep fixating.
We are Energy modelling a project with 3 types of systems to heat water:
1.- Solar Collector
2.- Electrical Heat PumpA type of heating and/or cooling equipment that draws heat into a building from outside and, during the cooling season, ejects heat from the building to the outside. Heat pumps are vapor-compression refrigeration systems whose indoor/outdoor coils are used reversibly as condensers or evaporators, depending on the need for heating or cooling. In the 2003 CBECS, specific information was collected on whether the heat pump system was a packaged unit, residential-type split system, or individual room heat pump, and whether the heat pump was air source, ground source, or water source.
3.- Hot water Boiler - Gas
For the "BASELINE" model, should I model the Solar Collector?
Should I just consider it for the PROPOSED model because it´s going to reduce the energy consumption?
You would model a gas hot water heater in the baseline and you'd model the proposed as designed.
A slight amendment to Anthony's suggestion - model the baseline for the heat pumpA type of heating and/or cooling equipment that draws heat into a building from outside and, during the cooling season, ejects heat from the building to the outside. Heat pumps are vapor-compression refrigeration systems whose indoor/outdoor coils are used reversibly as condensers or evaporators, depending on the need for heating or cooling. In the 2003 CBECS, specific information was collected on whether the heat pump system was a packaged unit, residential-type split system, or individual room heat pump, and whether the heat pump was air source, ground source, or water source. as electric water heater and the baseline for the boiler as gas water heater.
The solar is all savings!
We had the same question as Fabiano's a few days ago and we found in ASHRAE 90.1-2007, Appendix G, 11-Service Hot-Water Systems that:
"The service hot-water system in the baseline building shall use the same energy source as the corresponding system in the proposed design..."
So we concluded we had to model the solar water heating system in the baseline. I'm confused now...
Solar hot water is considered "on-site renewable energy" and should be modeled in the proposed only, as it is a savings. Report the savings in the appropriate section in the EAp2 template. you should be good to go!
I am going considering the heat pumpA type of heating and/or cooling equipment that draws heat into a building from outside and, during the cooling season, ejects heat from the building to the outside. Heat pumps are vapor-compression refrigeration systems whose indoor/outdoor coils are used reversibly as condensers or evaporators, depending on the need for heating or cooling. In the 2003 CBECS, specific information was collected on whether the heat pump system was a packaged unit, residential-type split system, or individual room heat pump, and whether the heat pump was air source, ground source, or water source. (electrical) and the boiler (gas) for the baseline.
The solar will be the savings for the Proposed then.
I can't find any LEED Interpretations on the subject, but I've always handled DHWDomestic hot water (DHW) is water used for food preparation, cleaning and sanitation and personal hygiene, but not heating. systems similarly to HVAC system types. So for example, if the proposed building had a hybrid (gas/electric) HVAC system, you would use gas in the baseline. Similarly, if my proposed DHW system is a hybrid, I would use gas in the baseline. I agree that the user's manual doesn't really clarify this issue, so my guess is that either approach would be acceptable to GBCI.
The GBCI reviewer will follow the guidance in Table G3.1-11 Baseline that was quoted by Marcio above for the baseline service hot water (SHW) systems. "The service hot-water system in the baseline building shall use the same energy source as the corresponding system in the proposed design..." This language is pretty clear. SHW does not follow the same baseline guidance as the HVAC systems.
The solar hot water is addressed by the Exception to G2.4 which indicates that you use the back up source for the baseline when using an on-site renewable in the Proposed.
You're right, I started reading at bullet "a" which wasn't helpful.
I am currently working on a LEED NCv2009 project which includes a small building ~1,150sf, and has 200sf of regularly occupied space. The remainder of the building is restroom and storage area. The entire building is naturally ventilated with permanent louvers (always open) located at the top of each wall all the way around the building. The regularly occupied area also complies with natural ventilation requirements of ASHRAE 62.1 via appropriately sized operable windows and the building is located within a block of the ocean in a temperate climate. We are running into difficulty achieving the 10% minimum energy cost savings required for EAp2 as there is little energy usage, aside from process, in the building without an HVAC system. We basically have interior and exterior lighting (façade and site), a hot water heater and receptacle. We are using EnergyPro and T-24.
1) Since there is no heating or cooling, we do not have to model either. Correct? It is my understanding that if there was heating we would have to also model cooling or vice versa, however if the building is not conditioned we do not have to model either.
2) Do we have to provide any information for unmet heating and cooling hrs if we are not claiming savings for natural ventilation?
3) Any other general suggestions for modeling this scenario to achieve the requirements of EAp2??
According to Table G3.1.10 , you have to simulate, even if no cooling and heating system exist in building. In this case your baseline case and Proposed case HVAC system will be similar.
In your case if your building is residential than your baseline system will be System 2, if it is commercial than your baseline system will be system 4. For proposed case you have to use similar system that you have used for Baseline case.
Basic fundamental behind similar system is that you can show saving from envelop, lighting, HWH (if your envelop, interior lighting is more efficient than baseline) .
Hope this info helps you.
1. I am not sure of the T24 rules but it certainly makes sense to not model systems that do not exist and are identical. Even in 90.1 there is a work around to the requirement that Anil mentions - just change the temperature settings so the fake systems do not run.
2. No you do not.
3. Implement lighting and service hot water saving measures! Are you claiming any hot water demand reduction?
Thanks for the response Marcus!
1. We attempted to fake the systems with the temperature set points, however this apparently is not possible in EnergyPro. We ended up discussing this with EnergySoft who confirmed this would not be an option.
2. Thank you for confirming. This is good news.
3. I have a note to confirm that we are claiming hot water demand reduction, however am unsure right now. We are seeing some savings from the service hot water and may be able to capture some additional savings by switching to a more efficient unit. Lighting has been the Achilles heel for the project. From the beginning we were counting on efficient lighting to pull us through and achieve the minimum 10% savings, then the County requested additional lighting for safety measures and we are back to the drawing board with little room to work (without adding additional energy usage).
The standard is intended to regulate mainly conditioned spaces. IMO if the space is not conditioned, it has no "real" setpoint to meet. So the heating setpoint could be -50 deg C and the cooling setpoint could be +100 deg C. I have no problem with this for unconditioned spaces, unless they are regulary occupied...in which case I believe the intent of the standard is to anticepate that dissatisfied users will retrofit conditioning systems if they are often dissatisfied. For naturally ventilated spaces the upper bounds could be 28-32 deg C and the lower bounds at say 15 deg C. Check out AM10 to back up wild claims like this.
There are no envelope requirements for unconditioned spaces, meaning baseline = designcase. It's going to be hard to show enough savings.
Thank you Jean, I appreciate the suggestion to look at AM10. The project is located near the ocean in Southern California and the occupied portion is essentially a concession area which will serve the public at a park with a water fountain / feature. A majority of the time the weather in this area does fall between 15 and 32 deg C, and the concession area will likely not be open if it is below 15 deg C. There may be 2 times a year when the temperature is above 90 degrees F this close to the ocean.
I agree that it is going to be difficult to show enough savings as currently designed. We have discussed including AC in the building to take advantage of energy savings from the envelope and AC ...however it seems counterintuitive to include AC in a building to achieve energy savings for LEED. If we thought that thermal comfort was a real concern it would be a different story. I think that going back to the owner and discussing the lighting one more time may be appropriate, however I wanted to make sure that we would not run into problems with unmet hrs before asking for design changes. Alternatively, maybe looking into the thermal comfort and pursuing savings via exceptional calculations for natural ventilation is appropriate?
Re: via exceptional calculations for natural ventilation
In my experience, unless you have moterized automatic window/vent control to fractionally modulate the openings, regulating the temperature and or room air quality with windows/vents is very hard to proove with a simulation program.
I am currently attempting to do so (i.e. mimick building user behaviour for opening and closing windows) and it is very time intensive and shows pretty erratic behaviour. Especially in winter, due to cold outdoor temps, the room air temperature swings are huge. In 10 min the temp can drop from 22 degC to 17 deg C by opening windows when it is -2 outside. Wind plays a role, air speed plays a role, air quality plays a role.
This particular project has huge internal mass and internal gains, meaning even without heating, the zone overheats in winter if the windows remain closed. If you open a window the room overcools quickly, and as soon as you close the window, it overheats just as fast. I'm having to split the windows in each zone into 2 groups to "modulate" the total opening area (as windows have at most just 3 settings (closed, open, tip).
And I'm still testing and tuning...
If you go this route, good luck.
I suggest doing the baseline AC in both models (where none are planned).
We refer to ASHRAE 90.1 Supplementary Addendum i which discuss the LPDLighting power density (LPD) is the amount of electric lighting, usually measured in watts per square foot, being used to illuminate a given space. of tradable surface on table 9.4.5. In this table, they allow the base site light power in "watts" to be added for the given zones such as zone 2 of 600 watt. Since the allowed LPD of all areas of this addendum is very low. Can we add the 600 watt as the power of the baseline?
Do we even have to follow the addendum? Can we just follow the standard?
You do not have to follow the addendum, they are all optional. Looks like the base site lighting power replaced the additional 5% allowance, so yes you can add it.
I am working on a project where the base line hvac system is type 6 VAVVariable Air Volume (VAV) is an HVAC conservation feature that supplies varying quantities of conditioned (heated or cooled) air to different parts of a building according to the heating and cooling needs of those specific areas. with fan power boxes. ASHRAE 90.1 requires the fan power box CFM to be sized at 50% of the peak CFM at 0.3 W/CFM.
There is no guidance in 90.1 user manual on how to comply with this requirement, further more when we asked the modeling software help line they said that it can’t be done and that the software is automatically sizing the fan power box CFM at 50% of the system heating CFM not the cooling CFM.
This comment keeps coming almost on every project with this type of system. Any input on how to deal with this issue?
What software are you using?
I am also creating baseline with system-6. For system i have selected FP VAVVariable Air Volume (VAV) is an HVAC conservation feature that supplies varying quantities of conditioned (heated or cooled) air to different parts of a building according to the heating and cooling needs of those specific areas. with reheat, than for FP vav box, I took 50 % of Total CFM (Cooling) and multiply 50 % of CFM by 0.3 to get wattage. And input total wattage into secondary supply fan in Fan tab.
After reading above comment it sounds like, it is more complicated than what i did.
Just to be clear the value is 0.35 W/cfm.
We are not aware of any limitations in Trace for accurately modeling this issue. Anil's approach sounds right to us but we are not Trace experts. Consult the help desk again or post your issue on the Trace users group at onebuilding.org. Any other thoughts?
thanks Marcus and Anil that's easy way of doing it.
I have a Multi-Story Office building that is looking to achieve 19 points by purchasing PV Panels to offset the energy consumption. The initial study did not included a outdoor pool, which is inside the LPB. The pool and it's equipment are outside of the building. We are contemplating using a Dedicated Heat Recovery Chiller in the building to heat the outdoor pool. Must I include the pool heating as a process load or can I do an exceptional calculation outside the model and modify the DHRC COP to account for the efficiency improvements? The PV array has already been bid on, so including the pool load in the Energy Model will reduce the effectiveness of the PV Array.
You must include the pool. Check to see if some components of the pool heating are regulated by 90.1 in Section 7. If it is then it is not process. How you model it depends on the capabilities of the software you are using.
In a multiple building project we have 100 identical staff housing units that need to comply with AHRAE for EAP2. Must we test each and every building and can we do a % of them?
If they are truly identical, including orientation,etc. then you would only have to do one. Are they all part of one LEED project? Are you looking a the LEED Volume Program?
This is a question from a non-energy modeler looking for some guidance on base case vs. design case for a LEED energy model that a consultant is working on. The project is a school. Energy sources for the project are biofuel (wood chip) boiler and some geothermal. What should the base case fuel source be for the LEED energy model? Wood chips are cheap compared to heating oil, so we are seeing huge energy cost savings in the energy model if oil is the base case. EAc1 is indicating near 19 points. Could this be correct? It is an energy efficient project but 19 points seems high to me so I am wondering if we chose the base case correctly.
The Green Engineer, LLP
EAc1 relies directly on the EAp2 documentation, and the strategies to earn the prerequisite are often similar to earning points under the credit.
Limits on interior and exterior light use can help in reducing energy loads.
Daylighting reduces demand on installation and use of lighting fixtures resulting in energy use. To full realize the energy benefits, contorl electrical lighting with daylight sensors.
Commissioning of energy-efficient building systems helps realize he operational benefits of the design.
Onsite renewable energy contributes to prerequisite achievement if pursuing energy modeling under Option 1.
The computer model developed for EAp2 – Option 1 is used in the M&V plan.
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.