EBOM-2009 EAc1: Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance 1-18 points

This project is a major renovation to the existing building envelope (new skin added, new windows) and to the common area part of a tenant occupied office building. We have received approval from the USGBC to use LEED for New Construction. The core space lighting (elevator areas, lobby, restrooms, conference rooms), ductwork and finishes will be modified but the central air handling system and air cooled chiller and the tenant spaces will be only minimally altered. The question has been posed by the building manager regarding if they need to replace the tenant lighting in the space as the tenant space is not in the scope of work for the project. According to the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 users guide, if you were to replace more than 50% of the lighting fixtures in the building, you would have to meet ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lighting requirements, which, based on our analysis of what the base case and current design is in terms of lighting power density for this office building, means the building managers would have to replace all the tenant lighting with T8, 25 Watt lamps. However, if we replace less than 50% of the lighting in the building, we are not dictated by ASHRAE 90.1-2004, unless the renovation increases installed lighting power. However, according to the LEED Reference Guide for the prerequisite EAp2, lighting applies to all lighting installed on the building site including interior and exterior lighting. If the total installed interior lighting power is lower than the interior lighting power allowance calculated using ASHRAE 90.1-2004, the project complies. These two statements contradict each other if there is less than 50% of the lighting replaced, but the LEED Reference Guide does refer to the ASHRAE 90.1 users manual as a reference. Please advise on what to assume for the tenant space lighting power density in both the base case ASHRAE 90.1-2004 compliant building and the design case if less than 50% of the lighting is replaced.

Our project consists of multifamily rental units. We are performing the energy model using TRACE 700, a program that meets ASHRAE Standard 140-2004: Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load Tests. TRACE 700 does not have the capability of modeling domestic hot water energy usage. In order to account for domestic hot water energy usage we are proposing to use the Department of Energy sponsored Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory calculation methodology. The spreadsheet can be found at www.doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp?docid=2249. This spreadsheet estimates the energy consumption of water heaters based on power source, energy factor, and recovery efficiency. In addition, the spreadsheet estimates the energy reductions associated with hot water consumption of Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers. According to the CIR ruling dated 4/25/2007, credit cannot be taken for low flow fixtures accounted for in WE credit 3. However, clothes washers and dishwashers are not accounted for in LEED NC v2.2 WE credit 3. An exceptional calculation in accordance with Appendix G will be provided to demonstrate energy savings for the Energy Star appliance itself. In addition, we believe the reduction in the amount of hot water required by Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers should be accounted for in the water heating calculation. The basis for these calculations found at http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/aboutwhm.html will be uploaded as supporting documentation. 1. Can we use the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory spreadsheet since TRACE 700 does not model energy consumption for domestic water heaters? 2. Can the energy savings for the reduced hot water consumption for Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers be accounted for in the domestic hot water energy consumption calculation?

Our project is a newly constructed, 825,751 square foot automotive manufacturing facility in the midwest. The ventilation requirements for our facility, as set forth by ASHRAE 62.1, Section 2.2 states: "Additional requirements for laboratory, industrial, and other spaces may be dictated by workplace and other standards,.". Industrial facilities in this location fall under the requirements of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA). Per MIOSHA\'s, health standards ("Part 520. Ventilation Control"), R325.52007 Exhaust ventilation systems, Rule 7 states : "The minimum rate of exhaust ventilation for places of manufacturing, processing, assembling, maintenance and repair, or storage of material shall be 1 cubic foot of air per minute per square foot of floor area. This amount of exhaust ventilation may be provided by local exhaust, general exhaust, or both. The director may permit a variance if contaminant control is accomplished at a lesser rate of ventilation." MIOSHA has stated that an allowable level of contaminant control for dust/mist particulate would be 5 mg/cubic meter. In an attempt to save ongoing heating, cooling and ventilation expenses, the Owner chose to design the new facility in an innovative manner that could attain contaminant control at a much lesser ventilation rate than the default 1 CFM/SF that is set forth by MIOSHA and used by other automotive manufacturing facilities. The manufacturing facility has set a target of 0.5 mg/cubic meter, significantly lower than the MIOSHA required level of contaminant control. In order to reach this high level of contaminant control, they implemented the following innovative approaches: 1 - For the machining and grinding processes, enclosures were constructed and oil mist/dust collection systems were implemented with HEPA filtration. 2 - For the parts washers, enclosures were constructed and local exhaust ventilation systems were designed to capture contaminants at the source. 3 - For processes using hazardous materials, local exhaust ventilation systems were designed to capture contaminants at the source. 4 - "Dry floor guarding" systems have been implemented in the machine tool enclosures in order to minimize any escaping mist from the process. 5 - Micro-bacteria resistant coolants are used in the plant and biocides and utilized and monitored in order to control the bacterial counts in such systems. These control measures are over and above what is done in a typical, newly constructed manufacturing plant. With these control measures being utilized, extensive testing was done through the manufacturing facility to ensure that MIOSHA (and the much more stringent company requirements) exposure limits were being met. During the testing, the facility was ventilated at a rate of 0.21 CFM per square foot. At this ventilation rate, the facility was far below the company\'s target exposure limits, never measuring higher than a 0.13 mg/cubic meter exposure level. The Owner operates their facility at a ventilation rate of 0.5 CFM per square foot. This adds another level of safety factor to the building design. We are proposing that we run the energy model, in both the baseline and proposed case, with a ventilation rate of 1.0 CFM per square foot. We then intend to use the Exceptional Calculation Methodology of ASHRAE 90.1 to quantify our energy cost savings by lowering the ventilation rate. We intend to re-run our "proposed" model with 0.5 CFM per square foot to determine the cost savings for this exceptional calculation.

Many projects in Europe are connected to highly efficient district energy systems. However, the EAp2/EAc1 Option 2 guidance provided in the "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction" (DESv2) document is not well-suited for the complex interconnected district energy systems with multiple fuel sources that are common in Europe. Many European countries already make use of the Primary Energy Factor (PEF) as a means of evaluating district energy performance and building energy performance. Is there an alternative compliance path available to document EAp2/EAc1 credit for the district energy system using the Primary Energy Factor in lieu of the DESv2 Option 2 compliance path?

Many multifamily buildings are not master-metered for water, electric, and/or gas. It is often prohibitively difficult to get utility data from utility companies, and many residential occupants are uncomfortable providing their utility data. This poses a challenge to meeting the requirement to collect 100% of utility data for a building. Will USGBC allow sampling of utilities from the residential units?

This Project involves the construction of a Testing Facility for High Volume Low Velocity circulation fans. The building consists of a 1940 S.F. General Office Area, a 1940 S.F. Shop Area, and a 40550 S.F. Testing Area with a 50\' joist height. The Testing Area will have in it at most (4) four High Volume Low Velocity circulation fans operating at the same time. The building will have no transient occupants, and a maximum of (6) six employees that will occupy the entire building during normal business hours. This CIR is in reference to the Testing Area. 1. Testing Area: As part of the USGBC New Construction & Major Renovation Version 2.2, the building is required to meet ASHRAE 90.1 2004 (Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings), and ASHRAE 62.1 2004 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality). In accordance with ASHRAE 90.1 2004 the Testing Area is given a baseline LPD (Lighting Power Density) of 1.4 W/SF as is standard for a Laboratory. The only reference in ASHRAE 62.1 2004 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality) with regard to a Laboratory is listed in Table 6-1 under "Educational Facilities" - "Science Laboratories". The classification that most closely matches the actual use of the space in the Testing Area for ventilation purposes is a Warehouse, since the population density is low (6760 SF/Person), and the area will never contain "Laboratory" chemicals, "Laboratory" exhaust hoods, Make-Up air or a population density on par with an Educational Facility Science Laboratory. The Ventilation and Exhaust requirements for a Science Lab are (3) three times that of a Warehouse, and subsequently (3) three times the energy cost. Since the "actual" usage of the Testing Area fits the lighting energy requirements of a Laboratory (ASHRAE 90.1 2004) and the ventilation requirements of a Warehouse (ASHRAE 62.1 2004), can the design team consider this space as such for calculations, or does the requirement to stay consistent with room classifications supersede actual building function?

Our project is a 65,000 SF injection molding manufacturing facility and office near Detroit, MI. The project consists of 10,000 SF of air-conditioned office space, and 55,000 SF of air-conditioned manufacturing space, which includes injection molding equipment, as well as occupied assembly areas. The energy required for the manufacturing process exceeds 85% of the facility\'s total energy load. To achieve the 14% minimum energy savings, process load energy savings must be taken into account. As a result of the high energy loads associated with the manufacturing process, as well as the energy not falling under ASHRAE 90.1-2004, an exceptional calculation method must be established for the manufacturing area. Both the office area and the manufacturing area are conditioned. Space cooling in these areas will be achieved through constant volume rooftop units, and will be modeled through a standard energy modeling software like Trane Trace 700. The manufacturing process includes injection molding machinery which is cooled through a chiller & cooling tower assembly. The load on the chiller and cooling tower will not fluctuate (except for operational and non-operational hours, which will be achieved through a schedule). The chiller and cooling tower performance will be run in a separate energy model using this constant load to determine the overall energy used based on the outdoor air conditions throughout the year. The Chiller and cooling tower energy used will then be input into the original model as annual process energy. The Chiller and Cooling Tower efficiencies for the baseline will be based off ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum standards. The injection molding equipment proposed is state-of-the-art and very energy efficient compared to the standard injection molding machinery that is the industry standard. Using the client-provided operational times for the equipment we will be able to estimate the total energy used by this injection molding equipment, as well as the total energy that would be used by industry standard equipment. This will be used to determine the annual energy for both the baseline and the proposed design. We will then input these amounts into the original energy model as annual process energy. For comparison purposes, we also have a similar plant by the same client that uses the industry standard machines. By comparing the amount of equipment and square footage of this plant, we can achieve a very accurate idea of how much energy the new plant is saving. All calculations showing how the machinery energy was determined, and results of planned field monitoring, will be explained in an excel spreadsheet. Equipment descriptions and energy loads will be shown for all machines that will be used, as well as for comparable industry standard machines. Once the process equipment, both baseline and proposed, have been input into the overall energy model as process loads, the standard reports issued from the model will be used for the LEED Reports. In addition, we will provide the sub-energy models of the process equipment that is weather-based. Please confirm that our assumptions and method of calculating the process energy load for both the base and proposed design cases are acceptable for EAc1.

For an office campus of eight buildings, where metering occurs only at the campus level, is it acceptable to either enter all buildings as one into portfolio manager, or to use the EAc1 Option B calculator?

Many projects in Europe are connected to highly efficient district energy systems. However, the EAp2/EAc1 Option 2 guidance provided in the "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction" (DESv2) document is not well-suited for the complex interconnected district energy systems with multiple fuel sources that are common in Europe. Many European countries already make use of the Primary Energy Factor (PEF) as a means of evaluating district energy performance and building energy performance. Is there an alternative compliance path available to document EAp2/EAc1 credit for the district energy system using the Primary Energy Factor in lieu of the DESv2 Option 2 compliance path?