Automatic Receptacle Control

I do not think that because your electrical system is at a different voltage that you would be exempt. That seems to me to be a technicality and fails to address the issue which this section is trying to address. I agree that it could be very problematic to implement. Many small project do not install a centralized control system to even turn of lighting, let alone plug loads. So I am not sure how well this would even work in the US let alone in other countries. Anyone have any direct experience with this?

This goes to what I have called the next frontier, the control of plug loads. My insider at ASHRAE 90.1 committee feels they may have gone a little too far in this case, but it does address the underlining issue related to how big a part plug load can be in a high performance building. Enough soap box, but I think you get the idea that i support the concept and hope more tools are developed that helps us address this. Marcus is right, there are not a lot of tools for smaller projects. Larger projects can control circuits, and through careful electrical design, meet many of the requirements. Workstations continue to be an issue. Many system furniture companies have systems for plug load occupancy control, but some are zoned into more than one work space, which is an issue. Then some AHJs may not accept any "plugged" in solution...ie occupancy controlled plug strips that are becoming more and more common. There are manufacturers addressing smaller systems, but they are typically an add on to a broader lighting control system. There are even plug strips that are web enabled to allow scheduling and remote access. But again you have the "plugged in" issue. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this has not been addressed in Europe yet, as typically you are ahead of us related to these kinds of things.

The 2010 User's Manual and 90.1-2013 specifically exclude any plugged in solutions. They simply do not comply. I agree that we should be addressing plug loads. The issue is not only run time, which this addresses, but total connected loads. Perhaps there should be a W/sf limit too (with many exceptions of course)?

Has anyone shown compliance with the The Automatic Receptacle Control requirement via the Exception "b. Spaces where an automatic shutoff would endanger the safety or security of the room or building occupant(s)?" Our medical office building project has ambulatory, urgent care, and clinical spaces throughout the building and the owner and our engineers our concerned for safety in the offices in case of emergency. There are no true office spaces in the building as the building is designed to be flexible and may change in the future. I can explain the design further if needed...But what I'm really getting at is will GBCI accept our engineer's assessment for the risk of endangering the safety of the room or building occupants and do I need backup documentation other than a letter from the design team? Thanks!

Might not be quite that simple but most or all of the project sounds like it would meet the exception. Personally I would not buy the "may change in the future" argument as you could say this about any potential requirement. Since this is a mandatory provision I would contact GBCI for some guidance on the documentation required to claim the exemption. Have any v4 projects received this exemption?

Hi,  In relation to this topic. Am I correct in saying that if the proposed project does not have Automatic Receptacle Control as per ASHRAE 90.1 2010 section 8.4.2  then you must include a penalty in the model as per LEED Interpretation ID# 10462 ? Our project is in Ireland so we have the same comments as Jan above. If anyone has any feedback that would be great.       

Yes you model a penalty or implement some other measures to reduce plug load energy use.

Cianran, You are correct in assuming a penalty in the Proposed model based on the LEED Interpretation #10462 for your situation.

LEED Interpretation ID# 10462 Path 1: Projects Using Option 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation may model a penalty in the Proposed model for the spaces where mandatory ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented. The following modeling requirements apply:
• The receptacle power density modeled for these spaces shall be the greater of 0.75 Watts per square foot (8.1 Watts per square meter) or the design coincident peak receptacle power density (if known).
• The receptacle schedule modeled in the Baseline for these spaces shall have a minimum Equivalent Full Load Hours of operation no less than:
o The ASHRAE 90.1-2010 User’s Manual default schedule for office occupancy (2,920 Equivalent Full Load Hours per year)
OR
o 120% of the occupied hours of operation for the facility
OR 
o Detailed justification shall be provided supporting an alternate schedule.

• The Proposed model shall include either a 20% increase in the receptacle power density for these spaces OR a 20% increase in the scheduled receptacle Equivalent Full Load Hours of Operation versus the Baseline model. Our proposed project does not have Automatic Receptacle Control as per ASHRAE 90.1 2010 section 8.4.2. So I have followed the LEED Interpretation-ID# 10462 but I need some clarification as mentioned below.

• The receptacle power density modeled for these spaces shall be the greater of 0.75 Watts per square foot (8.1 Watts per square meter) or the design coincident peak receptacle power density (if known). – For Which Case we consider 0.75 Watts per square foot either BASE CASE or PROPOSED CASE?

 

• The Proposed model shall include either a 20% increase in the receptacle power density for these spaces OR a 20% increase in the scheduled receptacle Equivalent Full Load Hours of Operation versus the Baseline model. - The 20% increased receptacle power density whether consider from actual design or 0.75 Watts per square foot?

You can use the actual design or a default value from a viable source like the 0.75 W/sf. The easiest way to do this is to model the actual value or the default in the baseline and then increase the equipment power density by 20% in the proposed. So if you are using 0.75 that would be modeled in the baseline and you would model 0.9 W/sf in the proposed. 

Note where applicable to the project type, teams may use ASHRAE 90.1 2010 Section 8.4.2 exceptions for plug load control. Exceptions: Receptacles for the following shall not require an automatic control device: a) Receptacles specifically designated for equipment requiring continuous operation (24 hours/day, 365 days/year) b) Spaces where an automatic control would endanger the safety or security of the room or building occupant(s) When documenting the credit teams should reference the process tab of the energy performance calculator, check no under plug load control and then provide explanation of exemption.

What is the rational behind this requirement? Line losses? Surely not connected equipment?! Connected equipment that have a standby mode, need standby energy otherwise they are required to turn off. Even standby equipment have energy saving requirements by law. And the new transformers have amazing switching in built. Have you noticed how your cell phone plug no longer gets warm when it's plugged in without a phone attached? In my mind this leaves only line loses, which at 240V is a bit thin for the effort. Just producing the hardware switch gear to do this, not to mention the extra wiring would kill that carbon savings a hundred times over. I'm not even going to waste any math on it.

Is there an exclusion for automatic controlled receptacles for UPS-designated circuits? We have workstations that are provided with normal, base building power and a separate UPS circuit for critical equipment. I cannot find any interpretation indicating one or the other.

Summer notes a couple of exceptions in her post above - do either of them apply?