For a C&S or similar case where an actual lighting design isn?t available to reference, citing locally enforced requirements makes sense. Robby?s actual experience on this front strengthens my comfort level for such a scenario.
For cases where an actual lighting design does exist at LEED submission, I?ll voice one potential hole in this logic: On a nationwide level, not all AHJ?s actually enforce local/state adopted energy standards/codes, and others do so only inconsistently. USGBC can rely upon certain localities to enforce ?required? minimum performances, but not as well upon others.
At least for LEED-NC, with all the existing LEED/90.1 language built on documenting and modeling the actual, proposed design (as opposed to what?s minimally required per local code or otherwise), I have doubts for a final LEED model submission USGBC would accept a statement along the lines of ?Final LPD?s will be no worse than XXX.? Under that scenario, I?d inform/push the interested parties that your model?s final LEED results simply require the actual lighting design, if you?re being told otherwise.
If someone has experience to the contrary, I?d love to hear it however!
~Nick
NICK CATON, P.E.
Senior Engineer
360 Analytics
9750 3rd Ave NE, Suite 405
Seattle, WA 98115
office: 206.557.4732 ext. 205
