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 188.8.131.52c, 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 identified in the LEED 2009 Green Building Design and Construction Global ACP Reference Guide Supplement.
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.
Sounds like you need the peak hot water demand for the project? When modeling you typically enter the peak demand, the hot water equipment and then schedule it. From those values comes the annual hot water energy usage.
The annual water usage is something different and is estimated by the calculations for WEp1. For those fixtures using hot water a common assumption it that 50% of the total water use is hot water but this can vary depending on the system.
This may not be of much help but as energy modelers for the project we will request the peak hot water demand from the project's plumbing engineer. They have to calculate it to size the equipment. Even if you calculate it yourself it must be coordinated to make sure it reflects the actual design value.
Some guidance is in Chapter 50 that I referenced above.
I am sure ASPE has some documents that outline the calculations - http://aspe.org/
Many engineers use rules of thumb and sizing charts provided by the hot water heating equipment manufacturers.
The Advanced Energy Modeling Guide does not show water usage calculations.
Thanks for the advice. I think I know where to take this now. Much appreciated.
I am working on LEED ratail project for EAp2 option 1. Do we need to alway fill out the process equipment data including cooking, hood, refrig in the "LEED Retail Table 1-4 Process Efficiency Measures" as required by the LEED NC retail template? In my case, I will not claim any saving from all process equipment (process energy of baseline and proposed will be identical). Such table is very hard to fill out and would be nice if not require to be submitted. Can anyone guide me?
Yes if you project contains any of the equipment listed in the question. It is not only for claiming savings but also serves as an input summary for the modeling of this equipment.
What happen if some of the equipement do not have the data to pass the "Prescriptive Criteria". Some equipments were made local and have no data such as efficiency.
What if I just list all the equipement and did not try to get any claimed saving. For example, in Table 1, select "No" in the "prescriprive criteria met" role and select "manual calcuation" for bote baseline and proposed of "energy calculation methodology". Will this OK with EAp2 requirement?
I would think that as long as you model the equipment identically and provide a good summary of what you have modeled (with specifics) it should be acceptable.
Thank so much.
EAp2-3 section 1.4 table provided by LEED, under the Air-Side HAV Details.
Cell C26 indicates "Sum of fan power for all supply, return, relief, and exhaust fans cannot exceed G184.108.40.206 system fan power allowance calculated using supply cfm". However, I don't see or think ASHRAE 90.1 is limiting the fan powered only to the supply fan cfm. Please let me know your thoughts on this.
The statement is correct. The total baseline fan power is calculated using the supply cfm for the baseline system according the G220.127.116.11. There are other inputs, like the pressure drop adjustments, into the calculations but it always starts with the supply cfm. The total fan power is then distributed among the baseline system fans, typically in similar proportion to the proposed system if applicable.
We would like to ask something regarding a comment from a reviewer for EAc1, this is a rather vague comment in our view. Our project consist of around 5 buildings connected through a ground water loop supplied by a well, the cooling/heating process occur at a project scale not a campus scale. The reviewer said:
"It appears from the description in the Commissioning Report provided in EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning that a campus energy source is used for the Proposed Case building heating and cooling. Note that all New Construction, Schools, Core and Shell, and Commercial Interiors projects registered with the USGBC on or after 05/28/2008, and using district thermal energy, are required to follow the guidance of the document "Required Treatment of District Thermal Energy in LEED?NC version 2.2 and LEED for Schools, version 1.0" (DES v1) dated May 28, 2008 which can be accessed at: www.usgbc.org/resources/des-district-energy-systems-guidance-v22-and-v20.... Optionally, in lieu of following the required version 1.0 guidance, the project may choose to follow the guidance of the document "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009? Design and Construction" (DES v2) dated August 10, 2010 which can be accessed at: www.usgbc.org/resources/des-district-energy-systems-guidance-v22-and-v20.... If following version 1 of the District Thermal Energy guidance, please provide a Step 1 EAc1 template and supporting documentation if pursuing 2 points, or both a Step 1 and a Step 2 template and supporting documentation if pursuing more than 2 points, and provide sufficient information to show that the District Energy Requirements document has been appropriately applied to the project. If following version 2 of the District Thermal Energy guidance, please follow the requirements of either Option 1 or Option 2, as appropriate for your situation. The submitted LEED review documentation must clearly state which method, District Thermal Energy guidance v. 1.0 (DES v1 - May 2008) or District Thermal Energy guidance v. 2.0 (DES v2 - August 2010) was used".
The commissioning Report is not very clear on this, the Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements.
2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. Agent does not say that a campus energy source is used for the Proposed Case, but it only says the ground water source well pumps (campus) are out of his/her scope (which by the way are not energy source in any way). Thus we cannot follow any of these guidances suggested since the cooling and heating are provided at a project level instead of a campus level , given that the groundwater is considered a thermal storage only in this case. Has anybody had any experience on this type of comment?
Is your project v2.2 or 2009? I just responded to the same post in the v2.2 EAc1 forum.
Hi! Many local LEED Consultants have the same doubt related to VRF Systems when modeling per ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and regarding mandatory provisions.
The first one is which is the system we must use as equivalent of VRF for the proposed building and the second one is do the Fan Motor of the Outdoor Units Compressors need to comply with the electric efficiencies per Table 10.8?. We know that single-phase motors are exempt but what about three-phase ones?. Thanks so much for your help.
Not sure if I am interpreting the first part of your question correctly so I will provide three answers.
If you mean which is the equivalent baseline system - The baseline system is always defined by G3.1.1. VRFs tend to be all electric systems so use the electric column in Table G3.1.1A. Depending on the area and number of floors it should be a System #4, #6 or #8.
If you mean how do we model a VRF system if the software does not do so explicitly - You should model VRF systems with software that can directly model those systems. If this is not possible you will need to use a published work around or provide a thorough narrative describing how you have modeled the system.
If you mean what is the mandatory VRF minimum efficiency since it is not in the 6.8.1 tables - Since it is not listed, technically there is no mandatory minimum. However, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 does list minimum efficiencies for these systems which could serve as a guide.
I would not be at all concerned about the fan motors in the outdoor units. These fans are not scrutinized for compliance with this mandatory provision.
Marcus, thanks so much! you have just answered all my questions and cleared all my doubts. I was already aware of ASHRAE 2010 requirements regading VRF so we will look forward for this standard in order to get ready for LEED v4.
You are quite welcome.
I’m going to model two buildings that are on the same site and are of the same owner. The owner wants to achieve the LEED certification for both. The buildings aren’t attached, i.e. there is no common surface. Four geothermal heat pumps are installed in a building (building A) and are connected with both buildings (building A and building B). They provide both heated water and chilled water.
Probably the buildings will be registered separately, i.e. the “Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects” won’t be applied. Do you think that applying it would be a better solution?
Shall I model two different models? If so, shall the heat pumps be modeled according to “Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 – Design & Construction” both for the building B and for the building A?
Hi Francesco, I believe you have to model the buildings seperately (I can't exactly remember the information source). The common systems have a few options on how they may be handled, but I think Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy is a good start to check this out.
Hard to say which approach (campus or not) is best since there are other factors beyond energy modeling. Nothing prevents you from submitting two buildings within one submission if they share a common site.
Agree that you should do two models but you are not required to do so if it is one submission. Obviously you would need to do so if it is two separate submissions. DESv2 is always optional.
If a project retains existing mechanical systems, but the overall scope of the renovations meets the new construction threshold, are the baseline calcs based on code-minimum or should the project attempt to model the existing systems?
Our opinion is that you should model the existing mechanical identically. This is what the 90.1-2007 User's Manual states and is in alignment with the overall 90.1 approach to such issues (if you do not change the system you do not have to bring it up to code).
However, GBCI has indicated that the baseline mechanical systems should always be based on the Appendix G baseline since Table G3.1 does not explicitly state that the baseline should be modeled using the existing equipment.
We disagree but that is how the issue is being enforced for LEED projects.
In the newest version (v4) of the LEED forms and specifically on the form for this credit there are several required signatories, however, there isn't any information regarding of who is supposed to sign them. I remember that in the previous version (v3) of the LEED forms this information was provided next to the field where the team member is suppose to enter his initials. Are you having the same problem?
I think the latest version of this form is V5.
I believe that anyone can check the boxes on the newer versions.
I am intending to model a building on campus which is connected to a campus energy system providing chilled water and hot water. As I would like to achieve more points and I know the properties of the district energy systems, I am opting for Option 2.
I read the USGBC's guidance and modeled a virtual DES system for my proposed model. Now for the efficiencies, the guidance has conservative low values (heating efficiency of 70% and Cooling COP 4.4).
I know that the installed DES boilers have an efficiency of 82% and the installed DES Chillers have a COP of 6.1.
Can I simply use these efficiencies in my proposed model, or I have to account for the DES's part-load efficiencies? If so, then can I approximate the building's load to determine the corresponding efficiency from the part-load curves?
The current DES is supplying 3 buildings, and my new project has 2 new buildings to be constructed, so can I roughly obtain the efficiencies at half load (or say at 40% of the full load)?
Yes you account for part-load efficiencies. The efficiencies are determined based on actual loading. The virtual plant is created to serve your project only not the entire connected load of the DES. See Appendix C in the DES v2 for detailed guidance.
I'm modeling a school building. The DES was installed almost 8 months ago for the first phase of the project.
Now, we are consulting for the second phase, and additional chillers / boilers will be added to the DES in order to be able to serve both phases in addition to any potential building on campus in the future.
1) Getting back to Appendix C, and in order to determine the proposed building heating / cooling efficiency, I'm assuming I cannot use the "Monitoring" option because the DES will be expanded as part of my project. Is this correct?
2) If yes, then I assume I have to go with the modeling option. For this option, do I have to create a separate model of the district plant, or shall I add this district plant to my project's model? Appendix C says "Apply measured or estimated load profiles as "process loads" to reflect the estimated total loads on the plant". If this is the case, then if I add the process loads in addition to my project's loads, I will be double counting the loads, right?
Does this mean I have to create a dummy project building (with no loads) with the proposed district plant to determine the efficiencies?
3) Finally, is there additional guidance for modeling district energy systems, other than the one of the USGBC? Something with more examples or maybe a case study with actual numbers?
1) Sounds right to me unless you want to wait until the DES is upgraded and then monitor.
2) You create a separate energy model. The process loads would represent all of the buildings on the DES. This model is just used for determining the plant efficiency. You then use this information is a separate model of your building as an input into the virtual plant within that model.
3) I am not aware of any additional guidance.
I have a case of Southern aluminum louvers that do cover the entire wall, and I'am modelling the basecase without these louvers. I need to know if it's permissible to gain credits by shading both; southern windows and southern wall together?
I need also a suggested software to perform this simulation since that I'am using eQuest and it provides louvers only for glazed and not opaque surfaces as far as I know
The basecase is modeled without shading so you can take the credit. However, I would think there would be very little effect from shading an opaque wall that is even moderately insulated. I obviously do not know enough about the project to say for sure so maybe it is worth evaluating.
I am not sure of a software that does so but I would start with Energy Plus, maybe IES-VE?
If the louvers shading effect is 100 % you can modell them as north facing in the proposed model and regular orientation in the base line.
I'm using Revised Section 1.4 Tables (October 2012). I notice for Nontradable Surfaces "Total allowance calculated using the lesser of the design lighting power, or the lighting power allowance used, since no credit is permitted for nontradable surfaces", but I can't find where ASHRAE 90.1 -2007 states this. Can you help? It makes about a massive difference to my facade allowance (2470 W down to 768 W)
It is a LEED rule not a 90.1 rule. The logic has to do with the fact that it is not tradeable.
We received the following review comments during our design review and my question is, where do I find the Uvalue for the frame & glass assembly mentioned in their comments(this is a storefront application with alum framing and the glass field applied)? Does this come from the manufacturer? What we provided was the Uvalue for the glass only.
"It is unclear whether the window U-valueU-value describes how well a building element conducts heat. It measures the rate of heat transfer through a building element over a given area, under standardized conditions. The greater the U-value, the less efficient the building element is as an insulator. The inverse of (1 divided by) the U-value is the R-value. of 0.28 used for the Proposed Case accounts for the impact of the window frames on the
whole assembly as required by ASHRAE modeling protocol. Provide additional information to confirm that the framed assembly U-value
was used for the Proposed Case windows (such as: showing that the whole window assembly has been tested by NFRC; verifying that
LBNL Window5 calculations have been provided for the whole assembly; or verifying that the frame effects are captured within the
energy modeling software)"
Thanks in advance for any assistance
You need to show that the impact of the metal frames have been accounted for in the model. Sometimes you can get this from the manufacturer, sometimes you need to run Window 6 yourself, and sometimes you may be able to show that your modeling software is doing it. Basically you need to show the whole assembly performance of the windows. A typical metal framed storefront with low-eLow-E or Low-Emissivity Coating: Very thin metallic coating on glass or plastic window glazing that reduces heat loss and heat gain through the window; the coating emits less radiant energy (heat radiation), which makes it, in effect, reflective to that heat. In that way it boosts a window's R-value and reduces its U-factor. glass will have an assembly U-valueU-value describes how well a building element conducts heat. It measures the rate of heat transfer through a building element over a given area, under standardized conditions. The greater the U-value, the less efficient the building element is as an insulator. The inverse of (1 divided by) the U-value is the R-value. in the 0.4 to 0.5 range..
62.1 has an exahust requirement for mechanically ventilated Parking garages (Table 6-4), with an exception C - no ventilation required if two or more sides comprise walls that are at least 50% open to the outside.
But for a naturally ventilated space (5.1), section 6 does not apply, yet 5.1 only requires 4% of occupiable floor area as the minimum opening requirement.
This seems like a major difference.
My last question is if anyone has modelled a naturally ventilated garage and what information source did you use to apply the most correct air changes to represent the natural ventilation of this space?
Hi there, need help for energy simulation.
We have a workshop consists of two air conditioned workshops/labs that require 7ach and Relative humidity to be maintained at 50+/-10%.
To do that, we have included a reheat system using electrical heater in the Proposed case to control the humidity level. Can we include that in the base case as well? Because without electric reheat in the base case, our simulation model shows that the RH levels would be constantly about 70%, hence although it would meet the temperature set points, it would not be able to meet the design conditions for RH.
What is your baseline system?
Baseline system is system 4. DX Cooling
workshop is only one level.
I do not think you can add reheat to this system for humidity control. If there are humidity set points in the proposed they must be identical in the Baseline.
90.1 clearly discourages the use of reheat as it is typically a wasteful practice. So it makes sense that you would pay a penalty for it.
We have a narrow plan 3 storey naturally ventilated building with radiators (baseboard) in temperate Ireland. Some windows are user controlled and some controlled by the BMS, with night purge.
We have reviewed CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide 1734 and others which refer to 1734, but these interpretations seem only practical for small buildings: we have about 80 zones.
We have problems with ASHRAE 90.1-2007 G18.104.22.168 "unmet loads hours" and have bolted on 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. (to meet Table G3.1 10.d) which destroys our energy efficiency and seems pointless. The building has been occupied over a year and just went through a "hot" summer without difficulty.
VAV would not fit in the building without dropping in false ceilings, loosing the thermal inertia in the slab and radiant cooling therefrom, lowering ceiling heights so reducing beneficial stratification (although we haven't modelled stratification).
We are using EnergyPlus with DesignBuilder front end. We are using calculated natural ventilation. Each single year long simulation is taking about a week to run! We do short period runs too.
Any suggestions or others experience would be most welcome.
We hear on the grapevine that LEED may be struggling itself with how to deal with naturally ventilated buildings.
Hard to say anything about your unmet load hour issue without having much more information. Is it solely due to the natural ventilation? Did it go away when adding the cooling system? What are your temperature set points?
Regarding G3.1.10(d) - I think it is silly to add a cooling system since the easy work around is to increase the cooling set point until it does not run. So you could just leave it out and tell the reviewer that you will add it if necessary but increase the cooling set points rendering it a moot point. Also keep in mind that you are not adding it in reality, just in your Proposed model, so no need to add drop ceilings, etc.
In our experience your models should not take a week to run. We have modeled much larger and more complex projects with DB and the runs take a few hours at most. Something is wrong there.
Yes there are a group of folks working on better ways for LEED projects to deal with natural ventilation, especially for international projects. I have not seen any results yet. Right now the best guidance is in the Advanced Energy Modeling Guide for LEED in one of the appendices.
What are your temperature set points? 22/24/25 heating/nat vent/cooling
DB is telling us, for one zone e.g. loads not met htg=70hrs, clg=1049, occupied htg=7, occupied clg=1007, yet ASHRAE comfort summer or winter clo=1.5 hrs/annum. Maybe we are not understanding the output. I look at the E+ output and it looks like cooling is never coming on in that example zone.
"Regarding G3.1.10(d) - I think it is silly to add a cooling system since the easy work around is to increase the cooling set point until it does not run.":
ASHRAE G Table3.1-4 which tells me to use 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. "approved by the rating authority" for proposed and baseline. So if proposed summer setpoint=40C, baseline =40C. Local ratings authority says use 24C for cooling in offices.
"Also keep in mind that you are not adding it in reality, just in your Proposed model, so no need to add drop ceilings, etc." Understood. My understanding is LEED are trying to anticipate systems which would be retrofitted because the building is too hot. This particular building, if retrofitted, would get VRV.
"Something is wrong there." Calculated nat vent? 4 time steps per hour (for nat vent modelling). Or we just need a new PC, but E+ only runs in a single core so I dont see much gain. Or maybe our daylighting is too sophisticated. We have self-shading etc.
"Right now the best guidance is in the Advanced Energy Modeling Guide for LEED in one of the appendices." That refers to CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide 1734 which appears to be for a very simple building.
If cooling is not coming on then you can't have any unmet load hours. As I recall EP reports the total unmet load hours in a table within the main output reports.
The rating authority referred to in this case is USGBC and you are allowed to use whatever set points you wish since Appendix G does not specify what they should be.
Not sure why your model is taking so long to run. We recently modeled a 30 story office tower with a double facade and VRF systems in EP/DB and each run took only an hour or so.
That is the only guidance currently available unless you wish to propose your own methodology and submit an Interpretation for approval.
We've posted a question re DB reports direct to DB re unmet loads.
OK, USGBC is the rating agency. Doesn't the Proposed and Baseline building have to have the same cooling 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., per appendix G? Maybe we should submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide confirming this need not be the case for nat vent.
We are just installing a 64 bit version. See how that goes.
If our client would wait, maybe we should wait for the USGBC to come out with more guidance on nat vent buildings, though I doubt the client will wait. We have been at this particular LEED application a long time already.
Thanks for help.
Yes that is the only requirement for temperature set points, they must be identical in baseline and proposed.
The project is registered as a LEED NC v 2009. A good portion of the building project is going to be used for living quarters. Can ASHRAE 62.2 be utilized for the Outside Air Calculation??? Other parts of the building project include, private gym, storage area, museum, and band practice area. Total building area is about 20,000 sq ft contained within 3 stories
I am not sure that LEED NC 2009 is the right system for the project. 62.1 and 90.1 do not cover low rise residential, 3 stories and under. Sounds like a LEED for Homes project?
In general 62.2 cannot be used on LEED NC 2009 projects.
I'm working on the certification of a storage and distribution center that will have an electric forklift truck as part of its operations. Do we have to include the forklift truck in the energy model of the warehouse?
Thanks for your help!
Yes it is a plug load and must be accounted for within your models. All energy use within and associated with your project must be included.
Thanks for your response, Marcus.
Don't you think this is a bit contradictory with the certification's intent, though? LEED is practically punishing the client for choosing the most environmentally friendly option (electric powered forklift vs diesel or LPG/gas) by lowering the building's savings with respect to the baseline performance and affecting its potential to earn points in EAc1.
No I do not think it is contradictory. The environment does not care if it is a kWhA kilowatt-hour is a unit of work or energy, measured as 1 kilowatt (1,000 watts) of power expended for 1 hour. One kWh is equivalent to 3,412 Btu. for a forklift or for lighting. The whole point is to use the least amount of energy for all energy use. If some energy use was just excluded, it is all to easy to just ignore.
It is not a punishment. If you are saving energy with a process load you can attempt to claim savings through an exceptional calculation. If it indeed the most environmentally friendly option then demonstrate that it is. Perhaps an emissions comparison? Not sure it would be enough to earn an ID credit but it might be.
This is a V4 doubt but I cant imagine anyone is monitoring the V4 forum so i decided that posting it here would be more effective.
Does anyone know wether or not evaporator input power should be included in the efficiency calculation of a VRF system? At first look it seems obvious that it should but then you start comparing it to the efficiency requirements of a chilled water system and everything gets kinda confusing. You obviously dont include fancoil/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. unit power input into your chiller efficiency calculation, so why would you include evaporator input power into your VRF system calc? Would it just be condenser cooling output divided by condenser input power? The funny thing is that the AHRI test procedures for split systems include evaporator input power.
I am monitoring the v4 forums and tried to help you there. I don't know the answer per se but you should be able to find it in the AHRI 1230 standard. I put a link to the free download in my reply.
I had a mini-heart attack until I realised my ceiling mounted LED light has indeed two faces and is visible towards two directions (30 m), because the data sheet indicated a connected load of around 8 W!
So my interperatation is the Watt per face is 8 / 2 = 4 W and is okay.
Sounds right to me.
Also sounds like you might want to seek a new profession if 3 W gives you a mini-heart attack! :-)
I have two questions regarding exterior lighting and treatment of the LEED boundary in EAp2.
1. If the LEED boundary excludes exterior lights that were installed as part of the project, should these lights be included in the energy model?
2. If the LEED boundary includes existing exterior parking lot lights to remain (powered from another building) should these lights be included in the energy model?
1. The LEED project boundary should not exclude work done associated with the project. Make sure the boundary complies with the MPRs.
2. Existing parking lot lights would be modeled identically in both cases and would be exempted from compliance within the mandatory requirements. Make sure to indicate in the documentation that these are existing.
Hello again! We are finalizing our model for a v3 Core and Shell Building Renovation. Our model is telling us that our process loads are under the requisite 25%, 23.66% to be exact. We would like to know if there is a comprehensive list of process loads so we can determine if we are missing something. For example, should exterior lighting and parking lighting be considered process loads? We currently have them as controlled loads. Our building is currently vacant, so we have used the 90.1 assumptions/defaults for plug loads, etc. because we don't have a specific list of equipment provided by a tenant. We are not using any Exceptional Calculation Methods. Do we need to "force" our model to reflect >25% process loads, or can we explain the minor discrepancy in the same manner I have used in this message? Thank you!
No do not "force" the project to be at 25%!
Exterior lighting and parking lighting are not process.
I am not aware of a comprehensive list. It is basically everything that is not regulated by 90.1. So if it does not fall into HVAC, hot water, lighting, or motors then it it process.
What is your building type? What loads are expected in the tenant spaces? How have you modeled plug loads? Is there an elevator load (often missed)?
You model process as accurately as possible and if you are under 25% that is fine, just explain how you modeled process and why you are under 25%.
It's a plain vanilla, 2 story, 64000 SF vacant office building. Existing building, not ground-up.
We did include the elevator as process.
Here are the loads we are modeling:
Space Heating (Elec)
Space Heating (Gas)
Fans - Interior
Receptacle Equipment (PROCESS)
Sevice Water Heating (Gas)
Power Exhaust Fan
Looks right to me. Are you using a W/area value to model plug loads? If so in your explanation cite the source you used.
Yes, about 2.2 W/SF. This is the worst case, assuming a high density of equipment with little diversity.
Yep that is a very high number. Any particular reason to use such a high value in the absence of knowing the actual value? If you look in the 90.1 User's Manual Table G-B the value for a typical office is 0.75 W/sf. Such a high value might be justifiable depending on the likely nature of the tenants. Are we talking stock trading floors or very high data center usage or something else?
If you used this value throughout the building in your model I have a very hard time believing that your are under 25%?
Can anyone please clarify which, if any, minimum efficiency requirements are set for heat-pump dehumidifiers (indoor swimming pool dehumidifiers) under ASHRAE 90.1 (2007)?
I do not think these are regulated by the standard so no minimum efficiency.
I have a question on which HVAC system type to choose for the baseline case for a project consisting of 4 buildings. The buildings have separate HVAC systems designed, and each building has a different activity type. My question is if I should take into account the area of all of the four buildings and total number of floors to determine the HVAC System Type based on table G3.1.1A, or should I treat each building separately and determine the system type for each one?
For the proposed case, each building has its own HVAC system (Packaged Units).
With separate HVAC systems I would think that each one would be considered separately.
Our problem is with PTHP (cooling mode) new construction.
The footnote 'c' is bit confusing. According to the footnote, the capacity should be in KW and some publish documents say it should in BtuA unit of energy consumed by or delivered to a building. A Btu is an acronym for British thermal unit and is defined as the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit, at normal atmospheric pressure. Energy consumption is expressed in Btu to allow for consumption comparisons among fuels that are measured in different units./hr.
Can anyone help us to resolve this issue.
Are you using the SI or IP version? My IP version says BTUA unit of energy consumed by or delivered to a building. A Btu is an acronym for British thermal unit and is defined as the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit, at normal atmospheric pressure. Energy consumption is expressed in Btu to allow for consumption comparisons among fuels that are measured in different units./h.
This is SI edition. The equation is 3.60-(0.213*Cap/1000). If the input is in kW, we believe, deviding the Cap by 1000 is not required.
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 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.