Hi,
I'm faced with a new issue I haven't experienced in the past. I'm working on an energy model for a building in a state where the energy code is 90.1 2007, but is applying for LEED v4 CI, which follows 90.1 2010. The project is an entire interior remodel for an 8 floor office building from the 1970s, with WWR around 50%. Early in the design process, a simple energy model was made to explore daylighting and window replacement. The owner decided to spend the money on very high efficiency HVAC equipment instead. There's improved lighting throughout the building, but since the local code is 2007, there isn't much of automatic lighting controls specified in the design.
However, 90.1 2010 Section 9.4 Mandatory Provisions requires these controls (daylighting + many spaces with OS) as a prerequisite. Would the project be disqualified from LEED for not having them in the proposed model? I'm not worried too much about the savings, as we'll likely hit our goal with the HVAC and lighting savings. But I'm concerned the LEED application will be rejected if these controls aren't proposed.
Does anyone have experience with this issue?
Needless to say, we're trying to push for these improvements to be added, but there's resistance for budget concerns and anti-LEED sentiments.
Thanks,
Waleed
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5912 thumbs up
May 30, 2018 - 9:12 am
You must meet the mandatory provisions unless there has been an exception granted. There is a way around the plug load control, see LEED Interpretation #10462 - https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10462. The daylighting controls must be in the design. If you are using LED lighting the cost should be relatively minimal.
Waleed AlGhamdi
Sustainability EnablerEskew+Dumez+Ripple
20 thumbs up
May 30, 2018 - 4:25 pm
Thanks Marcus.
Danna Richey
Energy Analyst and Sustainability ConsultantNewcomb & Boyd
2 thumbs up
July 29, 2019 - 1:21 pm
Marcus,
LI 10462 Path 2 indicates that we can "implement efficiency measures that will achieve an equal or greater reduction in receptacle energy consumption", as long as we can document savings equivalent to switched receptacles. Do you have any thoughts as to how we would document equivalent savings? Do you know of other project teams who have successfully documented this approach?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5912 thumbs up
September 3, 2019 - 2:48 pm
I have seen some computer energy management systems that reduce office equipment energy use. Examine your plug loads for specific energy saving opportunities.
Courtney Royal
Sr. Sustainability ConsultantTaitem Engineering
50 thumbs up
December 4, 2020 - 11:33 am
According to ASHRAE, the following are the exceptions, so can this apply to the outlets/circuits in systems furniture? For instance, not having controlled outlets with occupancy sensors for the computers?
Exceptions: Receptacles for the following shall not require
an automatic control device:
a. Receptacles specifically designated for equipment
requiring 24 hour operation.
b. Spaces where an automatic shutoff would endanger
the safety or security of the room or building occupant(s).
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5912 thumbs up
December 4, 2020 - 2:53 pm
It does not appear to me that either exception applies to outlets in systems furniture in a typical office.
June 13, 2024 - 1:19 pm
Hi Marcus,
In the case of an ID+C project, the first compliance path could never be used because Option 1: Whole Building Energy Simulation isn't a valid one for ID+C, it is Option 1: Tenant-level energy simulation, instead. Is that right?
Thank you
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5912 thumbs up
June 13, 2024 - 2:03 pm
Yes you would not follow the reqirements for BD+C projects, you would follow the ID+C requirements, which is tenant level simulation.