See all forum discussions about Warehouses-NC-v4 EAc2
 Subscribe to new posts about Warehouses-NC-v4 EAc2 Post a new question aboutWarehouses-NC-v4 EAc2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on Warehouses-NC-v4 EAc2»
FAQs about EAc2 :

The energy cost offset from onsite renewable energy cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisite. Can this cost offset still be credited to the proposed energy cost savings for this credit?

View answers »

Forum discussion

Warehouses-NC-v4 EAc2:Optimize energy performance

Baseline model for storage facility

Hi, I am working on a 5 story self storage building in Shoreline WA as the modeler. I am thinking to make the baseline building have cooling per ASHRAE 90.1 2010, but am unsure if that will fly, given the warehouse type occupancy would typically have fossil fuel furnace and ventilation only. Does anyone have any experience with this that they could share? 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

Sat, 03/25/2017 - 17:33

I would model the spaces as heating only using a system 9 or 10 in the Baseline.

Sat, 03/25/2017 - 18:26

Marcus, Thanks, for your input. The only problem with system 8 or 9 that I forgot to mention is that we are using thermal mass and phase change materials with nightime mechanical ventilation in order to cool the building, thus would like to claim the cooling savings. Considering this what system type would you think appropriate to model baseline the HVAC? Thanks again
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Sat, 03/25/2017 - 18:57

You don't get to pick and choose the baseline system type. You are required to select it based on Appendix G. That said if you wish to claim the savings you seek it will require an exceptional calculation which would need to include sufficient justification for your baseline system comparison.

Sat, 03/25/2017 - 23:22

Thanks Marcus, I was looking at "Nonresidential and 4 or 5 Floors and <2300 m2 or 5 Floors or Less and 2300 m2 to 14,000 m2 System 5—PackagedVAV with Reheat" due to building size, but I suppose that the Building Type would supersede building System 9—Heating and Ventilation resulting in size and System 9—Heating and Ventilation. It is also noteworthy that the building is in shoreline Washington and is being filed as a fully conditioned building with building code and I am planning on using Washington state energy code min as the baseline. Lastly, I have done exceptional calculation models with E+ for PCM's when the primary LEED model was done in TRANE, and for this do not see why this would fall into the exceptional calculation category. Thanks again for your insight
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Sun, 03/26/2017 - 15:35

I think you have to use heating only if it applies. Not sure that the code filing matters much for this situation but it could be a part of your justification for selecting an alternative baseline system. It is an exceptional calculation whenever you must violate a part of the modeling protocol to show savings. In your case you would need to justify an alternative baseline system and change the schedule relative to ventilation during unoccupied hours, Either one alone requires an exceptional calculation where you must justify the baseline as standard practice for a building of this type in this location. Exceptional calculations are required for LEED when: 1. A workaround is required in the software. 2. You must violate a part of the modeling protocol to show savings. 3. To claim savings for a process load.

Add new comment

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