I am working on a pharmaceutical storage warehouse that maintains over 300,000 SF of warehouse space at 72 degF year round due to gov't regulations. We thought this was a specialized case and pursued Case 2 to show compliance. The building has greatly reduced energy usage over the last 5 years and this earned us some points under Case 2. However, we have received review comments back stating that we must pursue Case 1 since it is considered an unrefrigerated warehouse. We do not meet the minimum energy star requirements to meet the prerequisite under Case 1, but we do under Case 2. We still feel that because of the special requirements on the building we should be allowed to pursue Case 2. Has anyone ever had any experience with this or suggestions about how to move forward?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Michael Opitz
Director of SustainabilityIconergy
60 thumbs up
May 27, 2011 - 5:35 pm
Ben:
I see some time has passed since your post. If it's not too late for me to help, could you tell me a couple of things:
1) have you looked up ENERGY STAR's official definition of "warehouse" to see how closely that matches your building?
2) where is your warehouse located, and what's the average outside temperature in summer and winter?