See all forum discussions about NC-2009 EAp2
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 EAp2 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 EAp2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 EAp2»
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

Service Hot Water & Heat recovery condensers

Greetings, In the project we are modeling, the Proposed design has applied a chiller’s condenser heat recovery without this to be required by the prescriptive requirement (6.5.6.2). The question is: Should the Baseline also to apply such heat recovery and if yes, should they be identical to Proposed. Baseline is System 5. Thanks.

0
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

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 13:52

See Table G3.1-11 Baseline (f). Under those circumstances are the only time it should be included in the Baseline. It should be the identical system type but the capacities may vary a bit and therefore the savings may vary slightly as well.

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 14:07

Thanks for the reply. I've read these clauses, but it stated that the Baseline should apply it if the prescriptive requires it for the Proposed. Besides, even if we want to apply such recovery to Baseline it is not possible, because System 5 is Package rooftop, which do not have such option.
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 14:40

Then apply the exception to Table G3.1-11 Baseline (f) and do not model it in either case.

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 14:49

Hi Marcus, I'm not getting something. 1 How to explain to the client that his investment will not be evaluated by the model. 2. Since System 5 does not allow applying condenser heat recovery (package rooftop) why it should not be allowed for the proposed, especially when the client explicitly ordered special chillers with DHW heat recovery option. There should be some missunderstanding.
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 15:18

1. You can evaluate it in the model and show your client the benefit. 2. I don't write the rules, good question. It is probably because the code requires it under the circumstances listed. It is therefore considered standard practice here and is therefore not eligible for savings. You could try to make the case for the savings but I would submit it as an exceptional calculation. You should state (and try to prove) that it is not standard practice in Bulgaria (assuming that is the case) therefore the Baseline you are suggesting is reasonable.

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 15:31

Thanks for the reply Marcus, If I understand you correctly, in the energy model I'll not model it in either case, but as an exceptional calculation I'll show the results of the designers concept and the savings from it. Of cource clearly explained and proved. This (condenser DHW recovery) is not standart practice in Bulgaria at all. Thanks
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Tue, 06/07/2016 - 15:48

You got it.

Wed, 06/08/2016 - 05:38

Marcus, thanks a lot for your reply and guidance. However I think that somehow USGBC should be alert that applying G3.1-11 Baseline (f) is possible only for Systems 7 and 8, where there are chillers. Condenser heat recovert for DHW in case of Air cooled unitary is possible but theoretically, abd nobody does it in practice, so if you want to apply G3.1-11 Baseline (f) for System 5 it'll not be possible. Thanks.
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Thu, 06/09/2016 - 14:19

Not including it in the Proposed model also violates one of the other modeling rule that the project must be modeled as design. So there is an internal conflict in Appendix G in that situation. So this is an ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G issue. I have not looked to see if this has already been addressed in subsequent (2010 or 2013 or 2016) versions of Appendix G. Thanks for at least pointing it out here.

Thu, 06/09/2016 - 15:18

I've checked in 2013 - it is the same, without any updates.
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Thu, 06/09/2016 - 15:26

The 2013 addenda did not address it either. I agree that it is a conflict. At least in your case I think we found a way to address it in LEED.

Add new comment

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