Hi,
Option 1 energy simulation - I am in review of the LEED Interpretation ID# 10419 and I am unclear how I model the existing envelope of a ID+C tenant space.
My review of the ASHRAE rule set seems to indicate that modeling the existing envelope, with no planned changes, is the correct way to create a model under 90.1-2010 but the LEED Interpretation ID# 10419 has the following comment which appears to be in conflict:
The energy model must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction requirements for HVAC, DHW, lighting and envelope.
Is this interpretation just indicating the energy modeler must use the 2013 energy code ruleset for new buildings which would be the case for lighting and mechanical and envelope if it were new?
I am unclear on how to proceed.
thanks!
Kevin
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
August 22, 2018 - 10:59 am
This interpretation addresses Title 24 so the ASHRAE rules do not apply.
This requires that the baseline model uses the Title 24 requirements. The proposed is modeled as it exists.
Kevin Gilleran
presidentGilleran Energy Management, Inc.
21 thumbs up
August 22, 2018 - 1:06 pm
Marcus,
Thanks very much for your response. Here is a further clarification on my two options under the T24 code:
1) The 2013 T24 energy code does allow the user to model an "existing" envelope with new mechanical and lighting. Under this condition it models the existing envelope the same under both the baseline and proposed models.
2) I can also model the existing envelope as "new" where it would be compared the a "new" baseline envelope. This is the worst case since portions of my envelope may not meet the current code so the building would be penalized for not being improved to meet the current code.
The confusing part is the language in the CIR which I guess I am interpreting too literally to mean that I must use option 2 noted above.
What do you think?
Thanks!
Kevin
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
August 22, 2018 - 1:18 pm
I also interpret it to mean that LEED is requiring the second option. The language is not confusing. I think that they intend for projects who choose to locate in a building with a lower than code envelop to be penalized for that choice.
Kevin Gilleran
presidentGilleran Energy Management, Inc.
21 thumbs up
August 22, 2018 - 1:29 pm
Marcus,
Thanks very much for your interpretation.
Kevin