See all forum discussions about NC-v4.1 EAp2
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-v4.1 EAp2 Post a new question aboutNC-v4.1 EAp2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-v4.1 EAp2»

Forum discussion

NC-v4.1 EAp2:Minimum Energy Performance

Automatic Receptacles LEED Interpretation

We are attempting to work on a project in LEEDv4.1, which in Optimize Energy Performance states that ASHRAE 90.1-2016 mandatory provisions must be met. However we are wondering if the following LEED Interpretation: https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10462 regarding the automatic receptacles, also applies to v4.1, or only to v4?

Thanks

1
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Fri, 01/24/2020 - 14:48

It should apply to 4.1 as well.

Wed, 02/26/2020 - 14:22

Dear Marcus, I am a bit confused. Reading the Reference Guide of LEED v4.1, it states on pg. 100 "Exception to Mandatory Measures requirements: For ASHRAE 90.1-2016 mandatory controls provisions that are quantified in the Appendix G Performance Rating Method, (e.g. lighting occupancy sensor controls, lighting daylighting controls, automated receptacle controls, etc.), projects may model the Proposed Building Performance control parameters identically to the Baseline Building Performance control parameters in lieu of compliance with the mandatory provisions." This means that we have the option of not complying with the mandatory control provisions?
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Wed, 02/26/2020 - 19:29

As I said it should apply to v4.1 but apparently is doesn't. This make absolutely no sense to me as it violates the requirement that the proposed is modeled as designed. Apparently it eliminates the the penalty one paid relative to the Interpretation originally mentioned. IMO this is a huge step backward in the wrong direction. 

Fri, 03/06/2020 - 15:59

Indeed Marcus, I agree with you. Thank you very much for the clarification, so it was a confusing topic. 

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.