Forum discussion
NC-2009 EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance
Has anyone heard of using ASHRAE 90.1-2010 section 8.4.2 Automatic Receptacle Control within LEED version 3 to show load reductions for the plug loads. I am thinking of using the same plug load with a reduced schedule for those receptacles on time of day control.
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forTo post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
A portion of our building envelope is historic. Can we exclude it from our model?
For an existing building, do I need to rotate the model?
Our process load is higher than 25%. Do we have to justify that?
Our local code references ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Should I use that for my documentation, or 90.1-2007?
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?
Which baseline HVAC system do I use if my building has no heating or air conditioning?
Our project has a diesel backup generator. Should we include it in our energy model?
Can SHGC be higher in the proposed than in the baseline model?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
February 15, 2012 - 12:31 pm
The issue you will run into is what is your Baseline assumption regarding what was left on. This potentially reduces run time but only if your Baseline assumption is that all or a portion of this load was left on. I think you would need to find data to support this assumption if you are claiming savings.
Eric Dixon
SmithGroupJJR1 thumbs up
April 20, 2018 - 2:52 pm
Is there any reason to believe that the rationale from LEED Interpretation ID# 10462 could be used to assume that a LEED v3 project could assume a 20% energy reduction in plug loads for the proposed case model when the design meets the requirements of 90.1-2010 section 8.4.2?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
April 23, 2018 - 11:47 am
Makes sense to me. I would think you this is sufficient justification for a 20% savings.
Jorge Torres-Coto
Building Systems Commissioning EngineerEmpirical Engineering, LLC
17 thumbs up
May 20, 2018 - 5:40 pm
The comment from Marcus is spot on, I have provided a calculation for a couple of project with the same justification without any problems for GBCI reviewers. My baseline is based on the energy calculations with the same schedule as the other systems for the occupied space (i.e. HVAC, lighting, etc.) These controls are tied into the lighting controls (occupancy/vacancy sensors), so the same schedule you utilize for the lighting has to be applied. I has justified the % savings using ASHRAE table G3.2. This table applies to Power Adjustment Percentages that are above and beyond that required by the Mandatory Measures. I do not think you can justify anything beyond what a bunch of engineers came up over lengthy discussions at their committee meetings. So anything above 10% - 15%, depending on the specific case you have on your project might not get approved or may get you a question from the reviewer. If you try to achieve 20% you are going to have to explain the rational behind the assumption, since it is assuming more savings than on Table G2.3.