This question is related to both EAp2 and EAc5.1. I am working on the energy model for a building that will not be occupied at the time of completion and the C&S HVAC will only consist of a few unit heaters to maintain 55 Deg F during the heating season. The only part of the energy model that will be based on the actual design will be the envelope, unit heaters and outdoor lights. My question is: should the building be modeled as a hollow unoccupied building that just needs to maintain a minimum of 55 Deg F, or should it be modeled as an occupied building using the default values from Appendix G?
If it should be modeled as an occupied building using default values, the measurement and verification comparison won’t be apples-to-apples since the actual energy use will be just the unit heaters in the winter and outdoor lights. Or, can we achieve M&V simply by complying with MPR 6 and provide the utility and water data in the Energy Star account?
Would greatly appreciate input anyone may have.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
March 5, 2012 - 10:06 am
Fully occupied using default values for the modeling using the ASHRAE Baseline HVAC system in both models.
I would go after the one point related to MPR 6. Doing the IPMVP for such a project would be very difficult.
Tony Schafer
24 thumbs up
March 5, 2012 - 10:20 am
Thanks Marcus - very helpful.
AtSite Inc
AtSite1 thumbs up
December 16, 2014 - 1:00 pm
Related question: I'm working on a cold, dark shell retail complex of 11 buildings in total. No single building is larger than about 60,000 square feet and several are smaller than 20,000 square feet. We intend to pursue the group approach where all buildings and the site receive the same rating. Would you say that the option 1 path is still the best method instead of option 2 or 3? If we did go with option 2 or 3, would we only have to demonstrate compliance with the areas of development under our control (and not the later fit out which will determine the lighting, HVAC, etc). The developer is also somewhat against creating tenant leasing or design requirements above code so if option 2 or 3 required that we would most likely eschew those paths. Thanks.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
December 16, 2014 - 2:13 pm
Whether Option 1 or 2/3 is used depends on the need to earn EAc1 points. Option 2/3 would only earn 1 EAc1 point while Option 1 makes the full 21 points available.
Option 2 or 3 only require you to demonstrate compliance related to the scope of work. So this probably means that you would need to comply with the envelop requirements and perhaps exterior lighting. No lease agreement requirements to do that. These options are very rarely used. If you do go down this path you must meet or exceed all of the applicable prescriptive requirements, no exceptions.