add "Dining Area" space type to the dropdown list under "Table 9.6.1 Space Type" in the lighting tab.
See all forum discussions about this credit »
View the LEED v4.1 version of this credit »
View the LEED v4.1 version of this credit »
SPECIAL REPORT
LEEDuser expert
Marcus Sheffer
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEED Fellow
SPECIAL REPORT
LEEDuser’s viewpoint
Frank advice from LEED experts
LEED is changing all the time, and every project is unique. Even seasoned professionals can miss a critical detail and lose a credit or even a prerequisite at the last minute. Our expert advice guides our LEEDuser Premium members and saves you valuable time.
Credit language
© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.
Intent
This prerequisite applies to projects registered prior to March 1, 2024. Projects registered after March 1, 2024 are subject to the v4 2024 Update
To reduce the environmental and economic harms of excessive energy use by achieving a minimum level of energy efficiency for the building and its systems.
Requirements
Whole-building energy simulation
Demonstrate a 5% improvement in the proposed performance rating over the baseline performance rating. To determine total energy cost savings, create two models, one for building energy cost and the other for IT equipment energy cost. Calculate the baseline building performance according to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G, with errata (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.), using a simulation model for the whole building and data center modeling guidelines. Determine the power utilization effectiveness (PUE) value of the proposed design. For this prerequisite, a minimum of 2% of the 5% energy savings must come from building power and cooling infrastructure. Projects must meet the minimum percentage savings before taking credit for renewable energy systems. The proposed design must meet the following criteria:- compliance with the mandatory provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, with errata (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.);
- inclusion of all energy consumption and costs within and associated with the building project; and
- comparison against a baseline building that complies with ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G, with errata (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.), and data center modeling guidelines.
Alternative Compliance Paths (ACPs)
Canada ACP - NECB
Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage cost improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for cost percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement many of these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
- Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
The following exceptions apply:
- ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory items 6.4.3.9, 9.4.1.2b, 9.4.1.4, 9.4.1.5, 9.4.3
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modeled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modelling.
The following exceptions apply:
- Option 1, Path 1 - Do not apply ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirements for purchased heating and cooling. Under this ACP, purchased heating and cooling (as applicable) are modeled as cost-neutral in the baseline and proposed case. Local rates for purchased heating (fossil fuel based) and cooling are used to establish the purchased heating and cooling costs. The energy model's scope accounts for only downstream equipment, plus purchased heating and cooling. NECB clause 8.4.3.6 does not apply for LEED projects.
- Model baseline systems in accordance with NECB requirements, with DX coils replaced with chilled water coils if purchased cooling is present and fossil-fired furnaces replaced with hot water coils if purchased heating is present.
- Option 1, Path 2: Do not apply ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirements for baseline systems. Model baseline systems in accordance with NECB requirements for onsite generated equipment (i.e. assume building is not connected to a DES and the proposed building is modeled with a virtual plant according to LEED v4 Reference Guide requirements).
Pilot ACPs Available
The following pilot alternative compliance paths are available for this prerequisite. See the pilot credit library for more information.
EApc92: Advanced Buildings™ New Construction Guide EApc95: Alternative Energy Performance Metric
EApc107: Energy Performance Metering Path
What does it cost?
Cost estimates for this credit
On each BD+C v4 credit, LEEDuser offers the wisdom of a team of architects, engineers, cost estimators, and LEED experts with hundreds of LEED projects between then. They analyzed the sustainable design strategies associated with each LEED credit, but also to assign actual costs to those strategies.
Our tab contains overall cost guidance, notes on what “soft costs” to expect, and a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of what to consider and what it might cost, in percentage premiums, actual costs, or both.
This information is also available in a full PDF download in The Cost of LEED v4 report.
Learn more about The Cost of LEED v4 »Frequently asked questions
Do the required savings for this prerequisite (and credit) need to come only from building energy, or also process loads?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
Our project doesn't have enough energy savings to earn the prerequisite. Can we get there by incorporating onsite renewables?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
Our proposed design has insulation R-values that are below those prescribed by ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Can we still meet the prerequisite?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
Addenda
7/10/2020 – Updated: 6/26/2024
Form Update
Description of change:
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/21/2023 – Updated: 4/21/2023
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/21/2023 – Updated: 4/21/2023
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
In the Further Explanation > Exceptional Calculation Method subsection titled "Changes from earlier versions of ASHRAE and LEED", make the following edits:
1. In the first sentence below the heading "Changes from earlier versions of ASHRAE and LEED", delete: "garage fan demand-controlled ventilation," from the first sentence
2. Delete the bullet point that begins "Enclosed parking garage ventilation. Modulating fan airflow rates based..." and delete the two sub-bullets that begin "The baseline fan power..." and "The ventilation rate..."
3. Delete the sentence "The same requirements apply to demand-controlled ventilation for outdoor air control sequences that provide ventilation for building occupants."
1. In the first sentence below the heading "Changes from earlier versions of ASHRAE and LEED", delete: "garage fan demand-controlled ventilation," from the first sentence
2. Delete the bullet point that begins "Enclosed parking garage ventilation. Modulating fan airflow rates based..." and delete the two sub-bullets that begin "The baseline fan power..." and "The ventilation rate..."
3. Delete the sentence "The same requirements apply to demand-controlled ventilation for outdoor air control sequences that provide ventilation for building occupants."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/9/2021 – Updated: 6/10/2021
Form Update
Description of change:
Summary tab: revise rounding on the Summary output tab to round down (i.e. the same as the rounding on the Performance outputs tab).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/9/2020 – Updated: 12/7/2020
Regional ACP
Description of change:
See the Resource Library for full ACP requirements and documentation.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/6/2018 – Updated: 11/6/2020
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Add the following to the bottom of the International Tips section:
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/6/2018 – Updated: 11/6/2020
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Add the following to the bottom of the International Tips section:
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
10/14/2019 – Updated: 10/11/2019
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Under the heading "ASHRAE model with full IT loading (model 3)", delete the following sentence:
"For the baseline models, the air temperature at the inlet of the server should be within ASHRAE’s recommended values, from 80.6°F (27°C) dry bulb and 59.0 °F (15°C) dew point to 64.4°F (18°C) dry bulb and 41.9°F (5.5°C) dew point, unless justification can be provided for an alternative minimum supply air temperature at the server inlet."
"For the baseline models, the air temperature at the inlet of the server should be within ASHRAE’s recommended values, from 80.6°F (27°C) dry bulb and 59.0 °F (15°C) dew point to 64.4°F (18°C) dry bulb and 41.9°F (5.5°C) dew point, unless justification can be provided for an alternative minimum supply air temperature at the server inlet."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2014 – Updated: 3/29/2018
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Add the following as a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/25/2017 – Updated: 8/1/2017
Form Update
Description of change:
v2009/v4 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator:
• Fixed formatting issues in the Performance Outputs tab
• Corrected calculation within the Service Water Heating tab.
• Fixed formatting issues in the Performance Outputs tab
• Corrected calculation within the Service Water Heating tab.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/14/2017 – Updated: 4/24/2017
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
In the Project Type Variations section, under Path 1. ASHRAE 90.1-2010, Appendix G, at the bottom of the section with the title "Energy Rates" in italics, insert the following guidance for projects where no tariffs or rates are available from the district energy system servicing the project:
"Energy Rates for Path 1:
• If tariffs or rates are not available from the district plant servicing the project (e.g. for campus or military plants), calculate the rates based on the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates from the model:
o If a flat rate structure is being used for all energy sources (meaning the cost per unit energy is the same throughout the year, and there are no demand charges), then these flat rates simply become the virtual energy rates for the project.
o Otherwise, if all energy rate structures are not flat, then a preliminary run of the Option 1 Baseline Case energy model must first be completed to identify the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates for the project. For this preliminary run only, the rate for the DES-supplied energy may be left blank, or may be entered as any value.
o Once all the virtual energy rates are known for electricity and fossil fuel, the virtual DES rates for both the Baseline and Proposed Case are then derived as follows:
District Chilled Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 71
Units of $/ton-hour = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.85
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.24
District Hot Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
District Steam Rate:
Units of $/ (Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
o Exception: to obtain the virtual fuel rate when the connected building does not use fossil fuel but the DES central plant does, use a flat rate consistent with the central plant rates or the historic average local market rates (no preliminary model run is needed). The virtual fuel rates must match in the Baseline and Proposed Case.
o The virtual DES rates are then input into the modeling software for each DES source and used for the remainder of the process. Alternatively, the virtual DES rates may be used to calculate the DES energy costs directly by multiplying the DES energy consumption for each DES source by its virtual DES rate. All virtual DES energy rates must be identical in the Baseline and Proposed Case."
"Energy Rates for Path 1:
• If tariffs or rates are not available from the district plant servicing the project (e.g. for campus or military plants), calculate the rates based on the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates from the model:
o If a flat rate structure is being used for all energy sources (meaning the cost per unit energy is the same throughout the year, and there are no demand charges), then these flat rates simply become the virtual energy rates for the project.
o Otherwise, if all energy rate structures are not flat, then a preliminary run of the Option 1 Baseline Case energy model must first be completed to identify the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates for the project. For this preliminary run only, the rate for the DES-supplied energy may be left blank, or may be entered as any value.
o Once all the virtual energy rates are known for electricity and fossil fuel, the virtual DES rates for both the Baseline and Proposed Case are then derived as follows:
District Chilled Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 71
Units of $/ton-hour = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.85
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.24
District Hot Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
District Steam Rate:
Units of $/ (Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
o Exception: to obtain the virtual fuel rate when the connected building does not use fossil fuel but the DES central plant does, use a flat rate consistent with the central plant rates or the historic average local market rates (no preliminary model run is needed). The virtual fuel rates must match in the Baseline and Proposed Case.
o The virtual DES rates are then input into the modeling software for each DES source and used for the remainder of the process. Alternatively, the virtual DES rates may be used to calculate the DES energy costs directly by multiplying the DES energy consumption for each DES source by its virtual DES rate. All virtual DES energy rates must be identical in the Baseline and Proposed Case."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/14/2017 – Updated: 4/19/2017
Form Update
Description of change:
• Functionality has been added to allow for eQUEST and TRACE files to be automatically imported into the calculator.
• Bug fixes for the Opaque Assemblies, Shading and Fenestration, and Schedules tabs.
• Bug fixes for the Service Hot Water Flow calculations.
• Bug Fixes for Schedules tab
• v2009 Only – Bug fix to allow macros to make automatic changes for LEED v3 BD+C: Multifamily Midrise
• v2009 Only – ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirement has been removed from the General HVAC tab confirmation boxes.
• Bug fixes for the Opaque Assemblies, Shading and Fenestration, and Schedules tabs.
• Bug fixes for the Service Hot Water Flow calculations.
• Bug Fixes for Schedules tab
• v2009 Only – Bug fix to allow macros to make automatic changes for LEED v3 BD+C: Multifamily Midrise
• v2009 Only – ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirement has been removed from the General HVAC tab confirmation boxes.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
9/13/2016 – Updated: 11/15/2016
Form Update
Description of change:
(calculator dated 8/23/2016, published 9/13/2016)
• Baseline System Helpful Notes Section has been updated in the Water-Side HVAC tab
• District energy system (DES) Path 3 calculations have been revised
• Optional notes column has been added to each tab for project teams to provide further clarification
• Exceptional calculation formulas have been revised
• Performance upgrade to the General Information tab has been implemented
• Baseline case fan power formulas have been updated
• Lighting table language has been updated (v2009)
• Exterior lighting quality assurance (QA) checks have been updated
• Further guidance has been provided for determining unitary cooling efficiency in the Helpful Notes section of the Air-Side HVAC tab
• Performance Outputs tab formulas have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
• Summary tab formulas have been revised to reference total cost savings with and without renewable energy contribution
• Receptacle Equipment Modeling Method tables have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
• Baseline System Helpful Notes Section has been updated in the Water-Side HVAC tab
• District energy system (DES) Path 3 calculations have been revised
• Optional notes column has been added to each tab for project teams to provide further clarification
• Exceptional calculation formulas have been revised
• Performance upgrade to the General Information tab has been implemented
• Baseline case fan power formulas have been updated
• Lighting table language has been updated (v2009)
• Exterior lighting quality assurance (QA) checks have been updated
• Further guidance has been provided for determining unitary cooling efficiency in the Helpful Notes section of the Air-Side HVAC tab
• Performance Outputs tab formulas have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
• Summary tab formulas have been revised to reference total cost savings with and without renewable energy contribution
• Receptacle Equipment Modeling Method tables have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/29/2016 – Updated: 7/29/2016
Form Update
Description of change:
From:
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
To:
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
Supply supporting documentation to document the planned number of proposed servers and ensure it is consistent with the average power at utilization calculated. Please ensure that this value only claims the number of servers influenced by the project. If less than 100% of the of the IT load is influenced, then this value will not be equivalent to the total number of servers in the future fully fit-out facility.
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
To:
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
Supply supporting documentation to document the planned number of proposed servers and ensure it is consistent with the average power at utilization calculated. Please ensure that this value only claims the number of servers influenced by the project. If less than 100% of the of the IT load is influenced, then this value will not be equivalent to the total number of servers in the future fully fit-out facility.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2015 – Updated: 10/2/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
After the first paragraph, add the following:
For an expanded reference of international locations, ASHRAE 169-2013 Table A-5 (Canada) or Table A-6 (International) may be consulted. ASHRAE 169-2013 subdivides Climate Zone 1 into two climate zones (Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0). Locations listed in ASHRAE 169-2013 in Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0 should be considered Climate Zone 1 under ASHRAE 90.1-2010.
For an expanded reference of international locations, ASHRAE 169-2013 Table A-5 (Canada) or Table A-6 (International) may be consulted. ASHRAE 169-2013 subdivides Climate Zone 1 into two climate zones (Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0). Locations listed in ASHRAE 169-2013 in Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0 should be considered Climate Zone 1 under ASHRAE 90.1-2010.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
10/1/2014 – Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Revise footnote #1 to:
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1–2010 Final Determination Quantitative Analysis, p. 29, https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BECP_FinalQuan... (accessed July 11, 2014).
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1–2010 Final Determination Quantitative Analysis, p. 29, https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BECP_FinalQuan... (accessed July 11, 2014).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
10/14/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Data centers have large, complex energy use that is not as widely understood or regulated from an energy code perspective. Traditionally, the ASHRAE 90.1 standard has not provided any guidance on what the minimum performance should be for electrical distribution systems for data centers. Recently, ASHRAE published the 90.4-2016 standard that provides guidance and maximum electrical losses for two different size data centers (less than and greater than 200 kW) and for three different components (or segments) of the electrical distribution system (Incoming Electrical Service, UPS Segment, and ITS Distribution Segment). The standard also creates an overall energy efficiency metric, the Electrical Loss Component that is the composite of the efficiencies of each of the three components defined.
We are seeking confirmation that ASHRAE 90.4-2016 can be used to establish a baseline electrical system efficiency for data centers for the electrical distribution system. If approved, the process for documenting the Proposed Case electrical system efficiency would be to calculate each of the three component efficiencies, per ASHRAE 90.4-2016, and provide supporting documentation that outlines these calculations and includes back-up documentation for any equipment efficiencies used in that calculation. The resulting baseline and proposed case efficiencies and energy savings associated with the proposed electrical system design could then be summarized in a report or input into the USGBC Data Center Calculator to communicate the findings to the GBCI and review team.
Ruling:
The applicant proposes to use the Electrical Loss Component (ELC) calculated in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, Section 8 in lieu of the Electrical System Efficiency calculated in the LEED Data Center Calculator. In ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, the ELC is calculated based on maximum loads at two separate IT loads (100% and 50% of IT design load for Single Feed UPS; and 50% and 25% of IT design load for Dual Feed UPS).
The proposed approach is acceptable. However, if averaging the energy results for the project at 100% IT design load with the energy results for the project at startup IT loads, the ELC may only be used in conjunction with the 100% IT design load energy model, or with a startup IT load that represents 50% of IT design load for single feed UPS or no UPS configurations, or 25% of IT design load for active dual feed UPS systems. The documentation must specifically indicate the relevant maximum Electrical Loss / Efficiency Total from Table 8.2.1.1 or 8.2.1.2 of the Standard, and must be sufficient to confirm that the Electrical System Efficiency has been determined consistent with Standard 90.4:
a. Provide submittal drawings consistent with the requirements of Section 8.4.1.
b. Provide ELC calculations with the same level of detail as is provided in the Examples provided in Appendix C.
c. UPS Segment Efficiency: Losses shall be based on manufacturer’s stated losses based on manufacturer’s stated efficiencies per Section 8.3.1.5.
d. ITE Distribution Segment Efficiency: The longest path with the Electrical Component Efficiency: Indicate whether the rated or unrated equipment values have been used. For rated equipment, the values used in the calculations shall be the manufacturer’s numbers as derived from standardized testing per Section 8.3.1.9(a). For unrated equipment, provide verification that the efficiency values or losses have been verified per Section 8.3.1.9(b).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016 or later?
Ruling:
Project Type(NC = New Construction)
(CS = Core & Shell or unfinished space)
(CI = Interior Fitout)
Additional Percent Savings
Title 24 2016 /
Title 24 2019
Title 24 2022 (or later)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (v4.1)
TDV Energy (replacing cost & GHG metrics)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
Building Design & Construction (BD+C):
NC - Office
7%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC - Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
25%
29%
10%
14%
NC - Restaurant / Grocery
0%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC – School
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
NC – Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
NC – Hospitality
8%
15%
20%
0%
5%
NC – Warehouse
0%
28%
28%
10%
10%
NC – Multifamily (4+ stories)
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Multifamily low-rise (<4 stories)1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Single family residential1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Data Center
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
All Other (< 50% unregulated TDV)
0%
15%
15%
5%
5%
All Other (≥50% unregulated TDV)
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
CS-Office
5%
12%
16%
1%
4%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
CS-Restaurant/grocery
0%
13%
15%
2%
3%
CS-School
7%
15%
20%
2%
8%
CS-Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
CS-Hospitality
7%
11%
15%
0%
4%
CS-Warehouse
0%
21%
21%
6%
6%
CS-Multifamily
7%
9%
13%
1%
4%
CS-All Other
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
Interior Design & Construction (ID+C):
CI-Office
6%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
6%
6%
CI-Restaurant/grocery
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-School
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
3%
3%
CI-Healthcare
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Warehouse
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
9%
9%
CI-Multifamily
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-All Other
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
1/10/2020
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California and subject to compliance with Title 24 2019. Title 24 2019 has requirements for lighting power density more stringent than those requirements in ASHRAE 90.1-2010, and unfinished spaces in our project will be subject to the Title 24 2019 requirements.
For LEED credit compliance, our team plans to follow ASHRAE 90.1-2010 modeling. How can we document credit for Title 24 2019 compliant lighting in unfinished spaces?
Ruling:
Building Type*
Unfinished Space Lighting Power Density
Automotive Facility
0.70
Convention Center
0.80
Courthouse
0.80
Dining: Bar Lounge/Leisure
0.75
Dining: Cafeteria/Fast Food
0.70
Dining: Family
0.70
Dormitory
0.61
Exercise Center
0.70
Fire Station
0.71
Gymnasium
0.80
Healthcare Clinic
0.87
Hospital
1.05
Hotel
1.00
Library
0.95
Manufacturing Facility
0.90
Motel
0.88
Motion Picture Theater
0.75
Multifamily
0.60
Museum
1.06
Office
0.72
Parking Garage
0.17
Penitentiary
0.97
Performing Arts Theater
1.10
Police Station
0.96
Post Office
0.8
Religious Building
0.85
Retail: Grocery
1.05
Retail
1.00
School/University
0.72
Sports Arena
0.78
Town Hall
0.85
Transportation
0.60
Warehouse
0.55
Workshop
1.10
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2015
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
For projects located in California, can the 2013 Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code be used to demonstrate compliance in lieu of ASHRAE 90.1-2010?
Ruling:
Instead of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G, projects in California may demonstrate compliance with the 2013 Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code using the Performance method. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met:
• Energy Cost shall be used as the performance metric rather than TDV energy. Exception: A Pilot ACP allowing alternate metrics may be applied as applicable.
• Model all process energy consumption within and associated with the building as designed. Model all enclosed building spaces within and associated with the building even if the space types are not regulated by Title-24.
• BD+C: Major renovations must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction modeling requirements for HVAC, DHW, and lighting (as opposed to existing conditions). However, for LEED-BD&C, the baseline envelope conditions may be modeled using existing conditions prior to renovation.
• ID+C: The energy model must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction requirements for HVAC, DHW, lighting and envelope.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
No
1/4/2016
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Where the local code does not require vestibules or allows alternatives, can the project team take a penalty for not including vestibules in the design model?
Ruling:
Yes, in locations where the local code does not require vestibules or revolving doors the project team may choose one of the two options below. Additionally, all projects using this method must provide a narrative explaining how infiltration and exfiltration of air through building entries is addressed in the design.
1. Manual subtraction of the energy cost savings associated with vestibules as conservatively estimated by PNNL-20026 “Energy Saving Impact of ASHRAE 90.1 Vestibule Requirements: Modeling of Air Infiltration through Door Openings”. Refer to the Related Resource “Default Deduction for Vestibules” for the specific percentage subtraction required based on project type and climate zone.
2. Provide detailed exceptional calculation method calculations with each step of the calculation clearly described and in alignment with the analysis performed in PNNL-20026, but specific to the project building. Document the additional energy consumption of the project building associated with removing the vestibules from the project. No credit will be given for the use of air curtains when using this approach. A sensitivity analysis related to the number of occupants entering on an hourly basis would need to be justified. The narrative would also need to justify that the simulation software is capable of addressing the conditions required for the calculation. (Software with a well-mixed air assumption would not be able to apply this modeling approach).
***Update 11/9/20: This ruling is now applicable to LEED v4.1 BD+C and ID+C projects.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
10/2/2017
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is in the process of determining the exterior lighting power allowance for an ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G energy model. What qualifies within LEED as a surface that is “designed to be illuminated” per ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Section 9.4.3?
Ruling:
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Interpretation 33 states: “It was the intent of the Standard that spaces, areas, or applications that claim Lighting Power Density for compliance or performance rating have been designed to some reasonable lighting design criteria that meets industry standards, good design practice, and client desires.” Aligning with this intent, the average illumination of a surface “designed to be illuminated” must meet or exceed published minimum recommended illumination levels for the surface type (such as the IESNA Handbook, Zumtobel – the Lighting Handbook, EN1264-2, local code regulations, etc.).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/25/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
LEED Rating system adaptations allow adjusted point scales for existing building renovations, Core & Shell projects, and healthcare programmatic space types in recognition that a greater proportion of the energy consumption is either outside of the scope of the project, or more difficult to mitigate within the project scope.
In a colocation data center, the building provides space, power, cooling, and physical security for the server, storage, and networking equipment of other firms. Therefore, while the BD+C Data Center rating system is applicable to colocation data centers for LEED credits other than Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance, it most closely aligns with a Core & Shell project for Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance.
Can BD+C: Data Center projects consisting with at least 40% colocation data center space use the BD+C Data Center rating system, while complying with the Core & Shell Minimum energy performance percentage improvements, and applying an Optimize Energy Performance point scale that matches the point scale for Core & Shell projects?
Ruling:
Yes, colocation data center projects using the BD+C: Data Centers rating system, and whole building energy simulation may use the following BD+C: Core & Shell energy performance improvement thresholds in lieu of the New Construction thresholds.
• Minimum Energy Performance: Demonstrate a 2% improvement in the proposed building performance in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard).
• Optimize Energy Performance: Use the Core and Shell column of Table 1. Points for percentage improvement in lieu of the New Construction or Major Renovation column.
Provide sufficient information to confirm that at least 40% of the project gross area consists of colocation data center space.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016?
Ruling:
Project Type1
Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office
7%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
NC-School
7%
NC-Health Care
0%
NC-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
NC-Hospitality
8%
NC-Warehouse
0%
NC-Multifamily
8%
NC-All Other
0%
CS-Office
5%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CS-School
5%
CS-Health Care
0%
CS-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CS-Hospitality
7%
CS-Warehouse
0%
CS-Multifamily
7%
CS-All Other
0%
CI-Office
6%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CI-School
6%
CI-Health Care
0%
CI-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
CI-Warehouse
0%
CI-Multifamily
7%
CI-All Other
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2015
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
For projects located in Seattle, can the 2012 Seattle Energy Code be used to demonstrate compliance in lieu of ASHRAE 90.1-2010?
Ruling:
Instead of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G, projects in Seattle may demonstrate compliance with with all mandatory provisions of the 2012 Seattle Energy Code AND demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the 2012 Seattle Energy Code Total Building Performance (Section C407). The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met:
• Energy Cost shall be used as the performance metric rather than site energy (versus Section C407.3 which indicates that site energy shall be used). Exception: A Pilot ACP allowing alternate metrics may be applied as applicable.
• Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010.
o Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modeled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
• In addition to the documentation requirements established by the Seattle Energy Code, all required LEED documentation must be provided (and must include the same information as is required for ASHRAE 90.1-2010, with all baseline and proposed inputs shown) including:
o The LEED EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance form
o The LEED EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance form
o The LEED v4 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/minimum-energy-performance-calculator) (or a document with equivalent information) with Baseline inputs updated to refer to Seattle Energy Code.
• Multifamily high-rise and dormitory projects are not eligible for this alternative compliance path.
• BD+C: The equivalence applies for new construction only and does not apply to major renovations.
• ID+C: The energy model must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction requirements for HVAC, DHW, lighting and envelope.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/8/2017
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirement 8.4.2 Automatic Receptacle Control applies to 125 Volt receptacles in private offices, open offices, and computer classrooms. Are there any cases where exceptions to these mandatory requirements will be allowed?
Ruling:
The project team is requesting clarification regarding how to model spaces where mandatory ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented. Projects using one of the following two compliance paths are exempt from the receptacle control requirements:
1. Path 1: Projects Using Option 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation may model a penalty in the Proposed model for the spaces where mandatory ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented. The following modeling requirements apply:
• The receptacle power density modeled for these spaces shall be the greater of 0.75 Watts per square foot (8.1 Watts per square meter) or the design coincident peak receptacle power density (if known).
• The receptacle schedule modeled in the Baseline for these spaces shall have a minimum Equivalent Full Load Hours of operation no less than:
o The ASHRAE 90.1-2010 User’s Manual default schedule for office occupancy (2,920 Equivalent Full Load Hours per year)
OR
o 120% of the occupied hours of operation for the facility
OR
o Detailed justification shall be provided supporting an alternate schedule.
• The Proposed model shall include either a 20% increase in the receptacle power density for these spaces OR a 20% increase in the scheduled receptacle Equivalent Full Load Hours of Operation versus the Baseline model.
2. Path 2: Projects must demonstrate that the project has implemented efficiency measures that will achieve an equal or greater reduction in receptacle energy consumption, and will persist for a similar timeframe to those achieved by ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Section 8.4.2. It is recommended that a Credit Interpretation Request be submitted when pursuing this approach. The project must provide documentation regarding the receptacle equipment controls that will be implemented for the project; and must provide justification supporting the claim that the savings over the life of the efficiency measure will be similar to those anticipated for a project compliant with Section 90.1-2010 Section 8.4.2. Note: The baseline and proposed receptacle energy consumption for these spaces must be modeled identically if using this approach; the project is not eligible for any further receptacle savings in these spaces using the Exceptional Calculation Method.
Update 3/1/2024:
This LEED Interpretation is not applicable to projects subject to the LEED v4 2024 update because the allowance is directly incorporated into the v4 2024 update Reference Guide content for EAp Minimum Energy Performance.
Update 4/21/2023:
Note, the additional requirements published on 11/9/2020 for v4.1 projects using Path 1 are incorporated into the v4 Reference Guide content for EAp Minimum Energy Performance.
Update 11/9/2020:
Where ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented in accordance with Section 8.4.2 mandatory requirements, LEED v4.1 projects may apply either Path 1 or Path 2, subject to the following requirements for Path 1:
• Path 1: LEED v4.1 projects Using the Appendix G Performance Rating Method may model a penalty in the energy model. The following modeling requirements apply:
o The Proposed receptacle power density modeled for these spaces shall be the greater of 0.75 Watts per square foot (8.1 Watts per square meter) or the design coincident peak receptacle power density (if known)
o The receptacle schedule modeled in the Proposed design for these spaces shall have a minimum Equivalent Full Load Hours of operation no less than: the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 User’s Manual default schedule for office occupancy (2,920 Equivalent Full Load Hours per year); or 120% of the occupied hours of operation for the facility; or detailed justification shall be provided supporting an alternate schedule.
o The Baseline model shall include either a 20% decrease in the receptacle power density for these spaces OR a 20% decrease in the scheduled receptacle Equivalent Full Load Hours of Operation versus the Proposed model.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/1/2012
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
This LEED Interpretation pertains to the requirement to limit voltage drop for Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 for Minimum Energy Performance. The current limit is posing a significant hardship to tall buildings relative to satisfying the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 (also applicable in 90.1-2010), referenced in the prerequisite.
Specifically, the requirement in Standard 90.1 to limit voltage drop to not greater that 2% for electrical feeders and 3% for branch circuits (section 8.4.1) has proven to be problematic for large projects which often contain feeders of extended length. By comparison, the National Electric Code does not explicitly regulate voltage drop, but suggests model Code language that limits either electrical feeder or branch circuit voltage drop to 3%, with the combined voltage drop of both feeders and branch circuits when added together not to exceed 5%.
This may appear to be a minor difference, However, when applied to long copper electrical feeders which are present in tall buildings, this absolute constraint from Standard 90.1 on the feeder voltage drop (of 2%) results in a significant increase in the required quantity of copper conductors and associated conduit.
As an example of a higher density regions attempting to resolve this issue, the New York City Electrical Code has adopted the National Electric Code model language as mandatory for all buildings and also included an exception for residential occupancies within buildings to limit electrical feeder voltage drop to 4%, and the combined voltage drop of both feeders and branch circuits to not more than 5%.
This change is in recognition of the inherently short branch circuit lengths in typical NYC apartments, and is based on measured testing results which indicate that voltage drop is often negligible due to the conservative feeder and circuit sizing requirements mandated by other aspects of the Code. Thus, for residential buildings the allowable voltage drop of 4% is twice the allowable voltage drop of 2% as required in 90.1. Depending upon the length and capacity of a particular feeder, this difference can equate to a 3X variance in the required quantity of copper conductors and conduit, with a significant associated cost premium.
The magnitude of the cost premium to satisfy the 90.1 criteria in tall buildings, as compared with New York City Code requirements, can be equal to the total of all of the other cost premiums (hard and soft) associated with achieving LEED certification (at the Silver or Gold level) for a medium to large project in New York City.
In order to resolve this issue, we are proposing an alternate compliance path that we believe would meet the intent of the prerequisite, while at the same time preventing cost prohibitive use of significant amounts of additional copper.
Voltage drop is literally the loss of electrical energy (converted to heat) within a building, therefore regulating voltage drop is no different than regulating the energy efficiency of any electricity consuming device in a building (such as light fixtures or HVAC motors).
Several approaches could be implemented within the LEED rating system to address this disproportionate prescriptive requirement of Standard 90.1. A simple and straight forward approach would be to allow buildings utilizing Appendix G energy modeling as the LEED energy compliance path to include voltage drop as a regulated parameter within both the Energy Cost Budget and Design Energy Cost models. Under this approach, the 90.1 criteria (2% for feeders and 3% for branch circuits) would included in the Energy Cost Budget model, but the Design Energy Cost model would be allowed to include the actual voltage drop that will be implemented in the project design.
This approach would achieve the direct intent of the voltage drop requirement of Standard 90.1 in regulating the energy efficiency of power distribution systems, but through the inherent trade-off methodology of Appendix G would allow projects the flexibility to eliminate a disproportionate cost premium that is otherwise incurred by a prescriptive requirement.
Ruling:
The proposed alternative compliance path for meeting the mandatory requirement of ASHRAE 90.1-2007/2010 Section 8.4, Voltage Drop Limitation, allowing voltage drop as a regulated parameter within the energy models, is not acceptable; however, a simplified alternative compliance path can be approved. As noted in the Formal Inquiry, code requirements and guidelines allow flexibility in meeting voltage drop guidance in feeders and branches as long as the overall voltage drop from service entrance to the worst-case connection is within limits. For the purposes of this prerequisite, the mandatory provision of ASHRAE 90.1-2007/2010 Section 8.4 will be met as long as the total voltage drop does not exceed 5%. Internationally applicable.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for code compliance. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013?
Ruling:
Yes, projects applying Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, and regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 may document additional energy performance improvement under LEED v4 EA credit Optimize Energy Performance as described below. The Appendix G modeling method must be used for the LEED submission, even if the Energy Cost Budget method is used to document local code compliance.
Projects may calculate the Equivalent ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Performance improvement as:
Equivalent performance Improvement = % better than ASHRAE 90.1-2013 + Additional Percent Savings
Projects subject to the v4 2024 update may apply the additional percent savings to each metric (cost, source energy, greenhouse gas emissions)
Where Additional Percent Savings is shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Additional Percent Savings for ASHRAE 90.1-2013
Project Type1 Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office 5%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 5%
NC-School 6%
NC-Health Care 3%
NC-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
NC-Hospitality 5%
NC-Warehouse 1%
NC-Multifamily 3%
NC-All Other 2%
CS-Office 3%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 3%
CS-School 6%
CS-Health Care 1%
CS-Restaurant / Grocery 2%
CS-Hospitality 3%
CS-Warehouse 0%
CS-Multifamily 1%
CS-All Other 1%
CI-Office 3%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 4%
CI-School 6%
CI-Health Care 2%
CI-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
CI-Hospitality 4%
CI-Warehouse 0%
CI-Multifamily 1%
CI-All Other 2%
1 Mixed use buildings shall use the weighted average Additional Percent Savings based on the gross enclosed floor area associated with each building type. Unfinished spaces not submitted in the CS rating system shall use the CS values. Data center space must always be considered “All Other”.
***Updated March 1, 2024 to align with changes in the LEED v4 Energy Update
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
Documentation toolkit
The motherlode of cheat sheets
LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit is loaded with calculators to help assess credit compliance, tracking spreadsheets for materials, sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions, and examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects for you to check your work against. To get your plaque, start with the right toolkit.
Get the inside scoop
Our editors have written a detailed analysis of nearly every LEED credit, and LEEDuser premium members get full access. We’ll tell you whether the credit is easy to accomplish or better left alone, and we provide insider tips on how to document it successfully.
© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.
Intent
This prerequisite applies to projects registered prior to March 1, 2024. Projects registered after March 1, 2024 are subject to the v4 2024 Update
To reduce the environmental and economic harms of excessive energy use by achieving a minimum level of energy efficiency for the building and its systems.
Requirements
Whole-building energy simulation
Demonstrate a 5% improvement in the proposed performance rating over the baseline performance rating. To determine total energy cost savings, create two models, one for building energy cost and the other for IT equipment energy cost. Calculate the baseline building performance according to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G, with errata (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.), using a simulation model for the whole building and data center modeling guidelines. Determine the power utilization effectiveness (PUE) value of the proposed design. For this prerequisite, a minimum of 2% of the 5% energy savings must come from building power and cooling infrastructure. Projects must meet the minimum percentage savings before taking credit for renewable energy systems. The proposed design must meet the following criteria:- compliance with the mandatory provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, with errata (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.);
- inclusion of all energy consumption and costs within and associated with the building project; and
- comparison against a baseline building that complies with ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G, with errata (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.), and data center modeling guidelines.
Alternative Compliance Paths (ACPs)
Canada ACP - NECB
Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage cost improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for cost percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement many of these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
- Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
The following exceptions apply:
- ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory items 6.4.3.9, 9.4.1.2b, 9.4.1.4, 9.4.1.5, 9.4.3
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modeled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modelling.
The following exceptions apply:
- Option 1, Path 1 - Do not apply ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirements for purchased heating and cooling. Under this ACP, purchased heating and cooling (as applicable) are modeled as cost-neutral in the baseline and proposed case. Local rates for purchased heating (fossil fuel based) and cooling are used to establish the purchased heating and cooling costs. The energy model's scope accounts for only downstream equipment, plus purchased heating and cooling. NECB clause 8.4.3.6 does not apply for LEED projects.
- Model baseline systems in accordance with NECB requirements, with DX coils replaced with chilled water coils if purchased cooling is present and fossil-fired furnaces replaced with hot water coils if purchased heating is present.
- Option 1, Path 2: Do not apply ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirements for baseline systems. Model baseline systems in accordance with NECB requirements for onsite generated equipment (i.e. assume building is not connected to a DES and the proposed building is modeled with a virtual plant according to LEED v4 Reference Guide requirements).
Pilot ACPs Available
The following pilot alternative compliance paths are available for this prerequisite. See the pilot credit library for more information.
EApc92: Advanced Buildings™ New Construction Guide EApc95: Alternative Energy Performance Metric
EApc107: Energy Performance Metering Path
Cost estimates for this credit
On each BD+C v4 credit, LEEDuser offers the wisdom of a team of architects, engineers, cost estimators, and LEED experts with hundreds of LEED projects between then. They analyzed the sustainable design strategies associated with each LEED credit, but also to assign actual costs to those strategies.
Our tab contains overall cost guidance, notes on what “soft costs” to expect, and a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of what to consider and what it might cost, in percentage premiums, actual costs, or both.
This information is also available in a full PDF download in The Cost of LEED v4 report.
Learn more about The Cost of LEED v4 »In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit, for premium members only, saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
Do the required savings for this prerequisite (and credit) need to come only from building energy, or also process loads?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
Our project doesn't have enough energy savings to earn the prerequisite. Can we get there by incorporating onsite renewables?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
Our proposed design has insulation R-values that are below those prescribed by ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Can we still meet the prerequisite?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
7/10/2020 – Updated: 6/26/2024
Form Update
Description of change:
add "Dining Area" space type to the dropdown list under "Table 9.6.1 Space Type" in the lighting tab.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/21/2023 – Updated: 4/21/2023
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/21/2023 – Updated: 4/21/2023
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
In the Further Explanation > Exceptional Calculation Method subsection titled "Changes from earlier versions of ASHRAE and LEED", make the following edits:
1. In the first sentence below the heading "Changes from earlier versions of ASHRAE and LEED", delete: "garage fan demand-controlled ventilation," from the first sentence
2. Delete the bullet point that begins "Enclosed parking garage ventilation. Modulating fan airflow rates based..." and delete the two sub-bullets that begin "The baseline fan power..." and "The ventilation rate..."
3. Delete the sentence "The same requirements apply to demand-controlled ventilation for outdoor air control sequences that provide ventilation for building occupants."
1. In the first sentence below the heading "Changes from earlier versions of ASHRAE and LEED", delete: "garage fan demand-controlled ventilation," from the first sentence
2. Delete the bullet point that begins "Enclosed parking garage ventilation. Modulating fan airflow rates based..." and delete the two sub-bullets that begin "The baseline fan power..." and "The ventilation rate..."
3. Delete the sentence "The same requirements apply to demand-controlled ventilation for outdoor air control sequences that provide ventilation for building occupants."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/9/2021 – Updated: 6/10/2021
Form Update
Description of change:
Summary tab: revise rounding on the Summary output tab to round down (i.e. the same as the rounding on the Performance outputs tab).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/9/2020 – Updated: 12/7/2020
Regional ACP
Description of change:
See the Resource Library for full ACP requirements and documentation.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/6/2018 – Updated: 11/6/2020
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Add the following to the bottom of the International Tips section:
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/6/2018 – Updated: 11/6/2020
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Add the following to the bottom of the International Tips section:
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
"Developed by members of the European Roundtable, this table provides further guidance for project teams in Europe wishing to use European standards in lieu of certain ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory provisions in LEED v4. The guidance covers ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Mandatory Provision Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10. Column 1 of the table references the specific subsection used in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 2 displays the requirement as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Column 3 outlines the compliance pathway available for European projects. Column 4 includes, in some cases, further information about the proposal, differences between the proposal and the ASHRAE requirement, or a reference to further documentation.
Please refer back to the LEED v4 web-based reference guide (Further Explanation > International Tips > Europe) for further information on the regional alternative compliance path.
Additionally, for projects using the Performance Option for compliance with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance and EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the documentation must also use the calculated U-factor for fenestration products including windows and skylights based on either the LBNL Windows 6 program, or a simulation software program that approximates the NFRC rating methodologies. Alternatively, a narrative shall be provided supporting the claim that the fenestration U-factor used in the model is similar to the values that would be achieved using the NFRC rating. The CE-marked fenestration does not account for thermal bridging and seasonal performance in the same way as the NFRC rating, and when accounted for in the energy model, has been observed to lead to savings that exceed those claimed for the same fenestration rated under the NFRC ratings."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
10/14/2019 – Updated: 10/11/2019
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Under the heading "ASHRAE model with full IT loading (model 3)", delete the following sentence:
"For the baseline models, the air temperature at the inlet of the server should be within ASHRAE’s recommended values, from 80.6°F (27°C) dry bulb and 59.0 °F (15°C) dew point to 64.4°F (18°C) dry bulb and 41.9°F (5.5°C) dew point, unless justification can be provided for an alternative minimum supply air temperature at the server inlet."
"For the baseline models, the air temperature at the inlet of the server should be within ASHRAE’s recommended values, from 80.6°F (27°C) dry bulb and 59.0 °F (15°C) dew point to 64.4°F (18°C) dry bulb and 41.9°F (5.5°C) dew point, unless justification can be provided for an alternative minimum supply air temperature at the server inlet."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2014 – Updated: 3/29/2018
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Add the following as a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/25/2017 – Updated: 8/1/2017
Form Update
Description of change:
v2009/v4 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator:
• Fixed formatting issues in the Performance Outputs tab
• Corrected calculation within the Service Water Heating tab.
• Fixed formatting issues in the Performance Outputs tab
• Corrected calculation within the Service Water Heating tab.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/14/2017 – Updated: 4/24/2017
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
In the Project Type Variations section, under Path 1. ASHRAE 90.1-2010, Appendix G, at the bottom of the section with the title "Energy Rates" in italics, insert the following guidance for projects where no tariffs or rates are available from the district energy system servicing the project:
"Energy Rates for Path 1:
• If tariffs or rates are not available from the district plant servicing the project (e.g. for campus or military plants), calculate the rates based on the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates from the model:
o If a flat rate structure is being used for all energy sources (meaning the cost per unit energy is the same throughout the year, and there are no demand charges), then these flat rates simply become the virtual energy rates for the project.
o Otherwise, if all energy rate structures are not flat, then a preliminary run of the Option 1 Baseline Case energy model must first be completed to identify the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates for the project. For this preliminary run only, the rate for the DES-supplied energy may be left blank, or may be entered as any value.
o Once all the virtual energy rates are known for electricity and fossil fuel, the virtual DES rates for both the Baseline and Proposed Case are then derived as follows:
District Chilled Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 71
Units of $/ton-hour = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.85
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.24
District Hot Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
District Steam Rate:
Units of $/ (Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
o Exception: to obtain the virtual fuel rate when the connected building does not use fossil fuel but the DES central plant does, use a flat rate consistent with the central plant rates or the historic average local market rates (no preliminary model run is needed). The virtual fuel rates must match in the Baseline and Proposed Case.
o The virtual DES rates are then input into the modeling software for each DES source and used for the remainder of the process. Alternatively, the virtual DES rates may be used to calculate the DES energy costs directly by multiplying the DES energy consumption for each DES source by its virtual DES rate. All virtual DES energy rates must be identical in the Baseline and Proposed Case."
"Energy Rates for Path 1:
• If tariffs or rates are not available from the district plant servicing the project (e.g. for campus or military plants), calculate the rates based on the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates from the model:
o If a flat rate structure is being used for all energy sources (meaning the cost per unit energy is the same throughout the year, and there are no demand charges), then these flat rates simply become the virtual energy rates for the project.
o Otherwise, if all energy rate structures are not flat, then a preliminary run of the Option 1 Baseline Case energy model must first be completed to identify the virtual electric and fossil fuel rates for the project. For this preliminary run only, the rate for the DES-supplied energy may be left blank, or may be entered as any value.
o Once all the virtual energy rates are known for electricity and fossil fuel, the virtual DES rates for both the Baseline and Proposed Case are then derived as follows:
District Chilled Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 71
Units of $/ton-hour = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.85
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.24
District Hot Water Rate:
Units of $/(Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.59 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
District Steam Rate:
Units of $/ (Btu x 106) = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/(Btu x 106)) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 3
Units of $/kWh = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/kWh) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh) x 0.01
Units of $/therm = Virtual Fuel Rate (in $/therm) x 1.81 + Virtual Electric Rate (in $/kWh x 0.3)
o Exception: to obtain the virtual fuel rate when the connected building does not use fossil fuel but the DES central plant does, use a flat rate consistent with the central plant rates or the historic average local market rates (no preliminary model run is needed). The virtual fuel rates must match in the Baseline and Proposed Case.
o The virtual DES rates are then input into the modeling software for each DES source and used for the remainder of the process. Alternatively, the virtual DES rates may be used to calculate the DES energy costs directly by multiplying the DES energy consumption for each DES source by its virtual DES rate. All virtual DES energy rates must be identical in the Baseline and Proposed Case."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/14/2017 – Updated: 4/19/2017
Form Update
Description of change:
• Functionality has been added to allow for eQUEST and TRACE files to be automatically imported into the calculator.
• Bug fixes for the Opaque Assemblies, Shading and Fenestration, and Schedules tabs.
• Bug fixes for the Service Hot Water Flow calculations.
• Bug Fixes for Schedules tab
• v2009 Only – Bug fix to allow macros to make automatic changes for LEED v3 BD+C: Multifamily Midrise
• v2009 Only – ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirement has been removed from the General HVAC tab confirmation boxes.
• Bug fixes for the Opaque Assemblies, Shading and Fenestration, and Schedules tabs.
• Bug fixes for the Service Hot Water Flow calculations.
• Bug Fixes for Schedules tab
• v2009 Only – Bug fix to allow macros to make automatic changes for LEED v3 BD+C: Multifamily Midrise
• v2009 Only – ASHRAE 90.1-2010 requirement has been removed from the General HVAC tab confirmation boxes.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
9/13/2016 – Updated: 11/15/2016
Form Update
Description of change:
(calculator dated 8/23/2016, published 9/13/2016)
• Baseline System Helpful Notes Section has been updated in the Water-Side HVAC tab
• District energy system (DES) Path 3 calculations have been revised
• Optional notes column has been added to each tab for project teams to provide further clarification
• Exceptional calculation formulas have been revised
• Performance upgrade to the General Information tab has been implemented
• Baseline case fan power formulas have been updated
• Lighting table language has been updated (v2009)
• Exterior lighting quality assurance (QA) checks have been updated
• Further guidance has been provided for determining unitary cooling efficiency in the Helpful Notes section of the Air-Side HVAC tab
• Performance Outputs tab formulas have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
• Summary tab formulas have been revised to reference total cost savings with and without renewable energy contribution
• Receptacle Equipment Modeling Method tables have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
• Baseline System Helpful Notes Section has been updated in the Water-Side HVAC tab
• District energy system (DES) Path 3 calculations have been revised
• Optional notes column has been added to each tab for project teams to provide further clarification
• Exceptional calculation formulas have been revised
• Performance upgrade to the General Information tab has been implemented
• Baseline case fan power formulas have been updated
• Lighting table language has been updated (v2009)
• Exterior lighting quality assurance (QA) checks have been updated
• Further guidance has been provided for determining unitary cooling efficiency in the Helpful Notes section of the Air-Side HVAC tab
• Performance Outputs tab formulas have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
• Summary tab formulas have been revised to reference total cost savings with and without renewable energy contribution
• Receptacle Equipment Modeling Method tables have been revised to be more robust for multiple building projects
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/29/2016 – Updated: 7/29/2016
Form Update
Description of change:
From:
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
To:
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
Supply supporting documentation to document the planned number of proposed servers and ensure it is consistent with the average power at utilization calculated. Please ensure that this value only claims the number of servers influenced by the project. If less than 100% of the of the IT load is influenced, then this value will not be equivalent to the total number of servers in the future fully fit-out facility.
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
To:
By entering the proposed number of servers, the average power utilization per server is calculated by dividing the Server kW by the number of servers.
Supply supporting documentation to document the planned number of proposed servers and ensure it is consistent with the average power at utilization calculated. Please ensure that this value only claims the number of servers influenced by the project. If less than 100% of the of the IT load is influenced, then this value will not be equivalent to the total number of servers in the future fully fit-out facility.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2015 – Updated: 10/2/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
After the first paragraph, add the following:
For an expanded reference of international locations, ASHRAE 169-2013 Table A-5 (Canada) or Table A-6 (International) may be consulted. ASHRAE 169-2013 subdivides Climate Zone 1 into two climate zones (Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0). Locations listed in ASHRAE 169-2013 in Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0 should be considered Climate Zone 1 under ASHRAE 90.1-2010.
For an expanded reference of international locations, ASHRAE 169-2013 Table A-5 (Canada) or Table A-6 (International) may be consulted. ASHRAE 169-2013 subdivides Climate Zone 1 into two climate zones (Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0). Locations listed in ASHRAE 169-2013 in Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 0 should be considered Climate Zone 1 under ASHRAE 90.1-2010.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
10/1/2014 – Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Revise footnote #1 to:
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1–2010 Final Determination Quantitative Analysis, p. 29, https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BECP_FinalQuan... (accessed July 11, 2014).
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1–2010 Final Determination Quantitative Analysis, p. 29, https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BECP_FinalQuan... (accessed July 11, 2014).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
10/14/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Data centers have large, complex energy use that is not as widely understood or regulated from an energy code perspective. Traditionally, the ASHRAE 90.1 standard has not provided any guidance on what the minimum performance should be for electrical distribution systems for data centers. Recently, ASHRAE published the 90.4-2016 standard that provides guidance and maximum electrical losses for two different size data centers (less than and greater than 200 kW) and for three different components (or segments) of the electrical distribution system (Incoming Electrical Service, UPS Segment, and ITS Distribution Segment). The standard also creates an overall energy efficiency metric, the Electrical Loss Component that is the composite of the efficiencies of each of the three components defined.
We are seeking confirmation that ASHRAE 90.4-2016 can be used to establish a baseline electrical system efficiency for data centers for the electrical distribution system. If approved, the process for documenting the Proposed Case electrical system efficiency would be to calculate each of the three component efficiencies, per ASHRAE 90.4-2016, and provide supporting documentation that outlines these calculations and includes back-up documentation for any equipment efficiencies used in that calculation. The resulting baseline and proposed case efficiencies and energy savings associated with the proposed electrical system design could then be summarized in a report or input into the USGBC Data Center Calculator to communicate the findings to the GBCI and review team.
Ruling:
The applicant proposes to use the Electrical Loss Component (ELC) calculated in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, Section 8 in lieu of the Electrical System Efficiency calculated in the LEED Data Center Calculator. In ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, the ELC is calculated based on maximum loads at two separate IT loads (100% and 50% of IT design load for Single Feed UPS; and 50% and 25% of IT design load for Dual Feed UPS).
The proposed approach is acceptable. However, if averaging the energy results for the project at 100% IT design load with the energy results for the project at startup IT loads, the ELC may only be used in conjunction with the 100% IT design load energy model, or with a startup IT load that represents 50% of IT design load for single feed UPS or no UPS configurations, or 25% of IT design load for active dual feed UPS systems. The documentation must specifically indicate the relevant maximum Electrical Loss / Efficiency Total from Table 8.2.1.1 or 8.2.1.2 of the Standard, and must be sufficient to confirm that the Electrical System Efficiency has been determined consistent with Standard 90.4:
a. Provide submittal drawings consistent with the requirements of Section 8.4.1.
b. Provide ELC calculations with the same level of detail as is provided in the Examples provided in Appendix C.
c. UPS Segment Efficiency: Losses shall be based on manufacturer’s stated losses based on manufacturer’s stated efficiencies per Section 8.3.1.5.
d. ITE Distribution Segment Efficiency: The longest path with the Electrical Component Efficiency: Indicate whether the rated or unrated equipment values have been used. For rated equipment, the values used in the calculations shall be the manufacturer’s numbers as derived from standardized testing per Section 8.3.1.9(a). For unrated equipment, provide verification that the efficiency values or losses have been verified per Section 8.3.1.9(b).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016 or later?
Ruling:
Project Type(NC = New Construction)
(CS = Core & Shell or unfinished space)
(CI = Interior Fitout)
Additional Percent Savings
Title 24 2016 /
Title 24 2019
Title 24 2022 (or later)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (v4.1)
TDV Energy (replacing cost & GHG metrics)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
Building Design & Construction (BD+C):
NC - Office
7%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC - Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
25%
29%
10%
14%
NC - Restaurant / Grocery
0%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC – School
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
NC – Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
NC – Hospitality
8%
15%
20%
0%
5%
NC – Warehouse
0%
28%
28%
10%
10%
NC – Multifamily (4+ stories)
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Multifamily low-rise (<4 stories)1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Single family residential1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Data Center
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
All Other (< 50% unregulated TDV)
0%
15%
15%
5%
5%
All Other (≥50% unregulated TDV)
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
CS-Office
5%
12%
16%
1%
4%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
CS-Restaurant/grocery
0%
13%
15%
2%
3%
CS-School
7%
15%
20%
2%
8%
CS-Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
CS-Hospitality
7%
11%
15%
0%
4%
CS-Warehouse
0%
21%
21%
6%
6%
CS-Multifamily
7%
9%
13%
1%
4%
CS-All Other
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
Interior Design & Construction (ID+C):
CI-Office
6%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
6%
6%
CI-Restaurant/grocery
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-School
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
3%
3%
CI-Healthcare
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Warehouse
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
9%
9%
CI-Multifamily
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-All Other
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
1/10/2020
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California and subject to compliance with Title 24 2019. Title 24 2019 has requirements for lighting power density more stringent than those requirements in ASHRAE 90.1-2010, and unfinished spaces in our project will be subject to the Title 24 2019 requirements.
For LEED credit compliance, our team plans to follow ASHRAE 90.1-2010 modeling. How can we document credit for Title 24 2019 compliant lighting in unfinished spaces?
Ruling:
Building Type*
Unfinished Space Lighting Power Density
Automotive Facility
0.70
Convention Center
0.80
Courthouse
0.80
Dining: Bar Lounge/Leisure
0.75
Dining: Cafeteria/Fast Food
0.70
Dining: Family
0.70
Dormitory
0.61
Exercise Center
0.70
Fire Station
0.71
Gymnasium
0.80
Healthcare Clinic
0.87
Hospital
1.05
Hotel
1.00
Library
0.95
Manufacturing Facility
0.90
Motel
0.88
Motion Picture Theater
0.75
Multifamily
0.60
Museum
1.06
Office
0.72
Parking Garage
0.17
Penitentiary
0.97
Performing Arts Theater
1.10
Police Station
0.96
Post Office
0.8
Religious Building
0.85
Retail: Grocery
1.05
Retail
1.00
School/University
0.72
Sports Arena
0.78
Town Hall
0.85
Transportation
0.60
Warehouse
0.55
Workshop
1.10
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2015
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
For projects located in California, can the 2013 Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code be used to demonstrate compliance in lieu of ASHRAE 90.1-2010?
Ruling:
Instead of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G, projects in California may demonstrate compliance with the 2013 Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code using the Performance method. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met:
• Energy Cost shall be used as the performance metric rather than TDV energy. Exception: A Pilot ACP allowing alternate metrics may be applied as applicable.
• Model all process energy consumption within and associated with the building as designed. Model all enclosed building spaces within and associated with the building even if the space types are not regulated by Title-24.
• BD+C: Major renovations must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction modeling requirements for HVAC, DHW, and lighting (as opposed to existing conditions). However, for LEED-BD&C, the baseline envelope conditions may be modeled using existing conditions prior to renovation.
• ID+C: The energy model must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction requirements for HVAC, DHW, lighting and envelope.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
No
1/4/2016
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Where the local code does not require vestibules or allows alternatives, can the project team take a penalty for not including vestibules in the design model?
Ruling:
Yes, in locations where the local code does not require vestibules or revolving doors the project team may choose one of the two options below. Additionally, all projects using this method must provide a narrative explaining how infiltration and exfiltration of air through building entries is addressed in the design.
1. Manual subtraction of the energy cost savings associated with vestibules as conservatively estimated by PNNL-20026 “Energy Saving Impact of ASHRAE 90.1 Vestibule Requirements: Modeling of Air Infiltration through Door Openings”. Refer to the Related Resource “Default Deduction for Vestibules” for the specific percentage subtraction required based on project type and climate zone.
2. Provide detailed exceptional calculation method calculations with each step of the calculation clearly described and in alignment with the analysis performed in PNNL-20026, but specific to the project building. Document the additional energy consumption of the project building associated with removing the vestibules from the project. No credit will be given for the use of air curtains when using this approach. A sensitivity analysis related to the number of occupants entering on an hourly basis would need to be justified. The narrative would also need to justify that the simulation software is capable of addressing the conditions required for the calculation. (Software with a well-mixed air assumption would not be able to apply this modeling approach).
***Update 11/9/20: This ruling is now applicable to LEED v4.1 BD+C and ID+C projects.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
10/2/2017
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is in the process of determining the exterior lighting power allowance for an ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G energy model. What qualifies within LEED as a surface that is “designed to be illuminated” per ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Section 9.4.3?
Ruling:
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Interpretation 33 states: “It was the intent of the Standard that spaces, areas, or applications that claim Lighting Power Density for compliance or performance rating have been designed to some reasonable lighting design criteria that meets industry standards, good design practice, and client desires.” Aligning with this intent, the average illumination of a surface “designed to be illuminated” must meet or exceed published minimum recommended illumination levels for the surface type (such as the IESNA Handbook, Zumtobel – the Lighting Handbook, EN1264-2, local code regulations, etc.).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/25/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
LEED Rating system adaptations allow adjusted point scales for existing building renovations, Core & Shell projects, and healthcare programmatic space types in recognition that a greater proportion of the energy consumption is either outside of the scope of the project, or more difficult to mitigate within the project scope.
In a colocation data center, the building provides space, power, cooling, and physical security for the server, storage, and networking equipment of other firms. Therefore, while the BD+C Data Center rating system is applicable to colocation data centers for LEED credits other than Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance, it most closely aligns with a Core & Shell project for Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance.
Can BD+C: Data Center projects consisting with at least 40% colocation data center space use the BD+C Data Center rating system, while complying with the Core & Shell Minimum energy performance percentage improvements, and applying an Optimize Energy Performance point scale that matches the point scale for Core & Shell projects?
Ruling:
Yes, colocation data center projects using the BD+C: Data Centers rating system, and whole building energy simulation may use the following BD+C: Core & Shell energy performance improvement thresholds in lieu of the New Construction thresholds.
• Minimum Energy Performance: Demonstrate a 2% improvement in the proposed building performance in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard).
• Optimize Energy Performance: Use the Core and Shell column of Table 1. Points for percentage improvement in lieu of the New Construction or Major Renovation column.
Provide sufficient information to confirm that at least 40% of the project gross area consists of colocation data center space.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016?
Ruling:
Project Type1
Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office
7%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
NC-School
7%
NC-Health Care
0%
NC-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
NC-Hospitality
8%
NC-Warehouse
0%
NC-Multifamily
8%
NC-All Other
0%
CS-Office
5%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CS-School
5%
CS-Health Care
0%
CS-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CS-Hospitality
7%
CS-Warehouse
0%
CS-Multifamily
7%
CS-All Other
0%
CI-Office
6%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CI-School
6%
CI-Health Care
0%
CI-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
CI-Warehouse
0%
CI-Multifamily
7%
CI-All Other
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2015
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
For projects located in Seattle, can the 2012 Seattle Energy Code be used to demonstrate compliance in lieu of ASHRAE 90.1-2010?
Ruling:
Instead of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G, projects in Seattle may demonstrate compliance with with all mandatory provisions of the 2012 Seattle Energy Code AND demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the 2012 Seattle Energy Code Total Building Performance (Section C407). The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met:
• Energy Cost shall be used as the performance metric rather than site energy (versus Section C407.3 which indicates that site energy shall be used). Exception: A Pilot ACP allowing alternate metrics may be applied as applicable.
• Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010.
o Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modeled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
• In addition to the documentation requirements established by the Seattle Energy Code, all required LEED documentation must be provided (and must include the same information as is required for ASHRAE 90.1-2010, with all baseline and proposed inputs shown) including:
o The LEED EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance form
o The LEED EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance form
o The LEED v4 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/minimum-energy-performance-calculator) (or a document with equivalent information) with Baseline inputs updated to refer to Seattle Energy Code.
• Multifamily high-rise and dormitory projects are not eligible for this alternative compliance path.
• BD+C: The equivalence applies for new construction only and does not apply to major renovations.
• ID+C: The energy model must be modeled using the Title-24 new construction requirements for HVAC, DHW, lighting and envelope.
Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/8/2017
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirement 8.4.2 Automatic Receptacle Control applies to 125 Volt receptacles in private offices, open offices, and computer classrooms. Are there any cases where exceptions to these mandatory requirements will be allowed?
Ruling:
The project team is requesting clarification regarding how to model spaces where mandatory ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented. Projects using one of the following two compliance paths are exempt from the receptacle control requirements:
1. Path 1: Projects Using Option 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation may model a penalty in the Proposed model for the spaces where mandatory ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented. The following modeling requirements apply:
• The receptacle power density modeled for these spaces shall be the greater of 0.75 Watts per square foot (8.1 Watts per square meter) or the design coincident peak receptacle power density (if known).
• The receptacle schedule modeled in the Baseline for these spaces shall have a minimum Equivalent Full Load Hours of operation no less than:
o The ASHRAE 90.1-2010 User’s Manual default schedule for office occupancy (2,920 Equivalent Full Load Hours per year)
OR
o 120% of the occupied hours of operation for the facility
OR
o Detailed justification shall be provided supporting an alternate schedule.
• The Proposed model shall include either a 20% increase in the receptacle power density for these spaces OR a 20% increase in the scheduled receptacle Equivalent Full Load Hours of Operation versus the Baseline model.
2. Path 2: Projects must demonstrate that the project has implemented efficiency measures that will achieve an equal or greater reduction in receptacle energy consumption, and will persist for a similar timeframe to those achieved by ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Section 8.4.2. It is recommended that a Credit Interpretation Request be submitted when pursuing this approach. The project must provide documentation regarding the receptacle equipment controls that will be implemented for the project; and must provide justification supporting the claim that the savings over the life of the efficiency measure will be similar to those anticipated for a project compliant with Section 90.1-2010 Section 8.4.2. Note: The baseline and proposed receptacle energy consumption for these spaces must be modeled identically if using this approach; the project is not eligible for any further receptacle savings in these spaces using the Exceptional Calculation Method.
Update 3/1/2024:
This LEED Interpretation is not applicable to projects subject to the LEED v4 2024 update because the allowance is directly incorporated into the v4 2024 update Reference Guide content for EAp Minimum Energy Performance.
Update 4/21/2023:
Note, the additional requirements published on 11/9/2020 for v4.1 projects using Path 1 are incorporated into the v4 Reference Guide content for EAp Minimum Energy Performance.
Update 11/9/2020:
Where ASHRAE 90.1 receptacle controls are not implemented in accordance with Section 8.4.2 mandatory requirements, LEED v4.1 projects may apply either Path 1 or Path 2, subject to the following requirements for Path 1:
• Path 1: LEED v4.1 projects Using the Appendix G Performance Rating Method may model a penalty in the energy model. The following modeling requirements apply:
o The Proposed receptacle power density modeled for these spaces shall be the greater of 0.75 Watts per square foot (8.1 Watts per square meter) or the design coincident peak receptacle power density (if known)
o The receptacle schedule modeled in the Proposed design for these spaces shall have a minimum Equivalent Full Load Hours of operation no less than: the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 User’s Manual default schedule for office occupancy (2,920 Equivalent Full Load Hours per year); or 120% of the occupied hours of operation for the facility; or detailed justification shall be provided supporting an alternate schedule.
o The Baseline model shall include either a 20% decrease in the receptacle power density for these spaces OR a 20% decrease in the scheduled receptacle Equivalent Full Load Hours of Operation versus the Proposed model.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/1/2012
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
This LEED Interpretation pertains to the requirement to limit voltage drop for Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 for Minimum Energy Performance. The current limit is posing a significant hardship to tall buildings relative to satisfying the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 (also applicable in 90.1-2010), referenced in the prerequisite.
Specifically, the requirement in Standard 90.1 to limit voltage drop to not greater that 2% for electrical feeders and 3% for branch circuits (section 8.4.1) has proven to be problematic for large projects which often contain feeders of extended length. By comparison, the National Electric Code does not explicitly regulate voltage drop, but suggests model Code language that limits either electrical feeder or branch circuit voltage drop to 3%, with the combined voltage drop of both feeders and branch circuits when added together not to exceed 5%.
This may appear to be a minor difference, However, when applied to long copper electrical feeders which are present in tall buildings, this absolute constraint from Standard 90.1 on the feeder voltage drop (of 2%) results in a significant increase in the required quantity of copper conductors and associated conduit.
As an example of a higher density regions attempting to resolve this issue, the New York City Electrical Code has adopted the National Electric Code model language as mandatory for all buildings and also included an exception for residential occupancies within buildings to limit electrical feeder voltage drop to 4%, and the combined voltage drop of both feeders and branch circuits to not more than 5%.
This change is in recognition of the inherently short branch circuit lengths in typical NYC apartments, and is based on measured testing results which indicate that voltage drop is often negligible due to the conservative feeder and circuit sizing requirements mandated by other aspects of the Code. Thus, for residential buildings the allowable voltage drop of 4% is twice the allowable voltage drop of 2% as required in 90.1. Depending upon the length and capacity of a particular feeder, this difference can equate to a 3X variance in the required quantity of copper conductors and conduit, with a significant associated cost premium.
The magnitude of the cost premium to satisfy the 90.1 criteria in tall buildings, as compared with New York City Code requirements, can be equal to the total of all of the other cost premiums (hard and soft) associated with achieving LEED certification (at the Silver or Gold level) for a medium to large project in New York City.
In order to resolve this issue, we are proposing an alternate compliance path that we believe would meet the intent of the prerequisite, while at the same time preventing cost prohibitive use of significant amounts of additional copper.
Voltage drop is literally the loss of electrical energy (converted to heat) within a building, therefore regulating voltage drop is no different than regulating the energy efficiency of any electricity consuming device in a building (such as light fixtures or HVAC motors).
Several approaches could be implemented within the LEED rating system to address this disproportionate prescriptive requirement of Standard 90.1. A simple and straight forward approach would be to allow buildings utilizing Appendix G energy modeling as the LEED energy compliance path to include voltage drop as a regulated parameter within both the Energy Cost Budget and Design Energy Cost models. Under this approach, the 90.1 criteria (2% for feeders and 3% for branch circuits) would included in the Energy Cost Budget model, but the Design Energy Cost model would be allowed to include the actual voltage drop that will be implemented in the project design.
This approach would achieve the direct intent of the voltage drop requirement of Standard 90.1 in regulating the energy efficiency of power distribution systems, but through the inherent trade-off methodology of Appendix G would allow projects the flexibility to eliminate a disproportionate cost premium that is otherwise incurred by a prescriptive requirement.
Ruling:
The proposed alternative compliance path for meeting the mandatory requirement of ASHRAE 90.1-2007/2010 Section 8.4, Voltage Drop Limitation, allowing voltage drop as a regulated parameter within the energy models, is not acceptable; however, a simplified alternative compliance path can be approved. As noted in the Formal Inquiry, code requirements and guidelines allow flexibility in meeting voltage drop guidance in feeders and branches as long as the overall voltage drop from service entrance to the worst-case connection is within limits. For the purposes of this prerequisite, the mandatory provision of ASHRAE 90.1-2007/2010 Section 8.4 will be met as long as the total voltage drop does not exceed 5%. Internationally applicable.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for code compliance. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013?
Ruling:
Yes, projects applying Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, and regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 may document additional energy performance improvement under LEED v4 EA credit Optimize Energy Performance as described below. The Appendix G modeling method must be used for the LEED submission, even if the Energy Cost Budget method is used to document local code compliance.
Projects may calculate the Equivalent ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Performance improvement as:
Equivalent performance Improvement = % better than ASHRAE 90.1-2013 + Additional Percent Savings
Projects subject to the v4 2024 update may apply the additional percent savings to each metric (cost, source energy, greenhouse gas emissions)
Where Additional Percent Savings is shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Additional Percent Savings for ASHRAE 90.1-2013
Project Type1 Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office 5%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 5%
NC-School 6%
NC-Health Care 3%
NC-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
NC-Hospitality 5%
NC-Warehouse 1%
NC-Multifamily 3%
NC-All Other 2%
CS-Office 3%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 3%
CS-School 6%
CS-Health Care 1%
CS-Restaurant / Grocery 2%
CS-Hospitality 3%
CS-Warehouse 0%
CS-Multifamily 1%
CS-All Other 1%
CI-Office 3%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 4%
CI-School 6%
CI-Health Care 2%
CI-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
CI-Hospitality 4%
CI-Warehouse 0%
CI-Multifamily 1%
CI-All Other 2%
1 Mixed use buildings shall use the weighted average Additional Percent Savings based on the gross enclosed floor area associated with each building type. Unfinished spaces not submitted in the CS rating system shall use the CS values. Data center space must always be considered “All Other”.
***Updated March 1, 2024 to align with changes in the LEED v4 Energy Update
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
LEEDuser expert
Marcus Sheffer
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEED Fellow
