FAQs about EAp2 :

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?

Our project has a diesel backup generator. Should we include it in our energy model?

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?

View answers »

Forum discussion

CS-2009 EAp2:Minimum Energy Performance

campus energy plant

Our LEED review of EAp2 seems to indicate that we cannot model the central plant and have to use “purchased chilled water” for both the baseline and proposed. When this change is made all of the enhancements that we have in the central plant are negated and our percentage improvement over the baseline drops. The LEED review states as follows: "Table 1.4.6 indicates that the Proposed Case model is utilizing Option 2 of the Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED v2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction (DES v2) dated August 10, 2010 which can be accessed at: https://new.usgbc.org/resources/des-district-energy-systems-guidance-v22-and-v2009-guidance-v20. However, it is unclear whether the Monitoring or Modeling method has been used to determine the average DES cooling efficiency per Appendix C. Revise the model as necessary, provide a narrative, and additional documentation confirming the method used for calculating the average DES cooling efficiency and provide revised simulation inputs reflecting any changes." Any help in clearing this up will be greatly appreciated!!

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, 08/26/2013 - 13:11

The segment of the review comment you provided does not indicate you must model the central plant as purchased chilled water. As I recall that review comment will typically provide you with the available options when modeling a central plant (Appendix G, DESv2 Option 1 or 2). Just because it is an option does not mean that you have to model it as purchased chilled water. The portion of the comment you provided is simply asking which method you used to determine the plant efficiency.

Mon, 08/26/2013 - 21:46

RE: campus energy plant. Our engineers are concerned and say as they read the comment and the document referenced in the comment, there is a floor or minimum number of points required to use option 2. The minimum is 6 points that we do not have, we only have 4; so do we have to use option 1? That is according to the LEED review comment. Thanks,

Mon, 08/26/2013 - 22:18

If you do not meet the minimum number of points you have to use Option 1 or use Appendix G and treat the chilled water as purchased energy. Both options are identical in their implementation but Option 1 has a point cap.

Thu, 08/29/2013 - 15:30

We have input the purchased chilled water, but we cannot find how to model the more efficient plant (proposed chiller efficiency vs. base chiller efficiency). We have reviewed input fields and on-line help (user manual), but cannot find how to adjust the purchased chilled water to account for the differing efficiencies. Has anyone in your group encountered this condition and if so, how were they able to resolve it? Thanks,

Thu, 08/29/2013 - 17:56

Under option 1 you do not include any efficiency difference since you are treating the chilled water as purchased energy and are not accounting for the plant efficiency. DESv2 Option 2 provides the methodology to use for determining the efficiency (see Section 2.4.1.2.1, 2.4.1.2.3 and Appendix C) of the baseline and proposed plants. This is only used if applying under this option.

Add new comment

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