FAQs about EAp2 :

Our project has a large process load—75%. Despite our efforts to make an efficient HVAC design, the cost savings are minimal. What can we do to earn this prerequisite and be eligible for LEED certification? Is there any flexibility in how we model the p

Can SHGC be higher in the proposed than in the baseline model?

Our process load is higher than 25%. Do we have to justify that?

Do I need to justify the electrical and fuel rates I am using in my model?

Our local code references ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Should I use that for my documentation, or 90.1-2007?

Can I claim exterior lighting savings for canopy lighting even though a baseline model cannot include shading elements?

The project is built on a site with existing exterior lighting installed. How should this be accounted for?

Can mezzanines open to floors below be excluded from the energy model?

How do I provide a zip code for an international location?

For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the climate zone?

For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the Target Finder score?

Do hotel rooms need automatic light shut-off control?

How commonly are the 90.1 mandatory compliance forms submitted as part of EAp2/EAc1?

The Section 9 space-by-space method does not include residential space types. What should I use?

Can the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) be used to energy model for LEED?

Is it acceptable to model a split-type AC with inverter technology compressor as a heat pump, like modeling VRF?

Can the Trace 700 'LEED Energy Performance Summary Report' by uploaded to LEED Online in lieu of the Section 1.4 tables spreadsheet?

A portion of our building envelope is historic. Can we exclude it from our model?

Which baseline HVAC system do I use if my building has no heating or air conditioning?

For an existing building, do I need to rotate the model?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 EAp2:Minimum Energy Performance

Method to report proposed case Energy consumption - On site Gas Engine based electricity generation

Dear All,

I have received the following comment by the reviewer:

"The method used to report the Proposed case energy consumptions does not account for the gas consumption and electricity generation of the gas engine generator. For the Final Review, report the natural gas consumption as a negative value and electricity generation as a positive value in Section 1.7 of the form."

This is a project where on-site gas engine based electricity is used  

The gas consumption was reported in Therms as reported in the eQUEST output. But it is NOT clear the intention of the comment.

If someone could throw some light on the above, appreciate very much

Thanks in advance.

regards

Anura 

0

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

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

Go premium for $15.95  »

Mon, 05/07/2018 - 14:25

It sounds like the reviewer is trying to get the prerequisite form to correctly show the savings. For CHP systems in the proposed model you include the gas consumption of the CHP plant associated with this project and then you subtract the electric production associated with this project. Most the more recent forms won't allow you to enter a negative number in the modeling results table so the reviewer is suggesting you enter it in the exceptional calculations area which does allow negative values.

Mon, 05/07/2018 - 23:57

Dear Marcus, Thanks a lot for the clarification. Much appreciated. regards Anura

Mon, 05/14/2018 - 00:04

Dear Marcus, This is further your related comment above. In incorporating the CHP into Table 1.7 i.e. electricity generated as "plus" and gas used as "minus", the cost savings are reduced. Are not we, by the inclusion of CHP into the Table 1.7 as exceptional calculation, negating the benefit obtained by the waste heat use on the Absorption HVAC system in the proposed case? Thanks in advance for your opinion. Anura

Mon, 05/14/2018 - 15:58

That benefit should be captured within the Proposed energy modeling results. The Proposed model should include the gas consumption of the CHP and the waste heat benefit. You record the gas use as a plus (that is what the CHP is consuming) and the electric production as a minus. Sorry for the confusion here but when you enter values into the exceptional calculation a negative entry reduces savings and positive entry improves savings. So there are two ways to do this - you can include the CHP impact in your proposed model and enter the electric production only in the exceptional calculation or you can model the proposed without the CHP, entering those results in the form, then run the proposed with the CHP and enter the difference in the exceptional calculation. The latter is preferred since the reviewer can clearly see the isolated savings associated with the CHP. In this case you would enter the electric production as a savings, and you would have both negative and positive gas consumption. Be sure to account for all the differences in the results between the two models.

Thu, 05/17/2018 - 02:22

Dear Marcus, Thanks a lot. What is your opinion if I do the following: 1. Model the proposed case with CHP 2. include electricity generated by CHP as "plus" in the Exceptional calculations 3. include gas consumption by CHP as "minus" in Exceptional calculation 4. include gas consumption equivalent to heat used by the absorption HVAC as "plus" in the exceptional calculation  Thanks in advance. Anura        

Thu, 05/17/2018 - 14:34

That is what we would do. Make sure you provide a thorough narrative explanation for what you have done and how you did it.

Add new comment

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