Forum discussion

CS-v4 EAp2:Minimum energy performance

LEED Interpretation 10498

Hello-

I wanted to get some clarity on LEED Interpretation 10498- https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10498

My project is a core and shell building in California with offices as the future tenants. 

The baseline building follows the ASHRAE 90.1 LPD for office spaces as 0.90w/sf. The finished spaces (core zones- restroom, storage, electric, mechanical rm) in the proposed building use as-designed LPDs and the unfinished spaces (future office) uses 0.72w/sf based on the Table 1 in the LEED interpretation. 

Is this methodology accurate??

 

LEED reviewer mentioned that there needs to be ONLY two LPD numbers- finished and unfinished spaces using the weighted average method.

Finished spaces should use the weighted average method and not use "Individual" LPDs. The reason being- ASHRAE doesnt allow that "Building type methodology" and "space by space methodolgy" should not be combined. 

Have any of you come across this? 

I just want to understand the "right" way to model LPDs in the future.

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, 12/05/2022 - 21:19

Based on the Interpretation your comparison sounds right to me. Not allowing the mixing of Building Area and Space-by-Space methods has been a very long standing rule for LEED projects.

Add new comment

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