HI All-

While there are some posts similar to this issue, I want to ask the group
for clarification for a slightly different application. Please bear with me
for some assistance, I'd sure appreciate it!

I am working on someone else's model that has had comments back from GBCI
for a LEED project. The model came to me in detailed mode. They note that
in the baseline model apparently non-90.1 baseline efficiencies were used.
Looking at the model, it does seem that the modeler manually entered
efficiencies (they are in red) and they do not seem to be correct (even the
GBCI comment notes this). They are less efficient than 90.1. In some of the
similar threads on this topic, someone mentioned that you can revert to
autosizing by right clicking on the heating and cooling capacity and
selecting "restore default". Since the modeler did not manually input
system size, just system efficiency (both cooling and heating hp eff, fan
design kw/cfm and total eff frac seem to be manually entered), my question
is if I restore those efficiency values to default (using right clicking),
will Equest use the proper efficiencies and I'm good to ho? I've done this,
and it seems to work, although I'm not experienced enough to truly verify
this.

When I compare the two models (original base and my reverted base) I do see
where the power demand has dropped (SV-A), and none of the peak loads have
changed (LS-A) but the equipment sizing (SV-A) has increased. This all
seems correct, do others think I am on track here? Using the correct
methodology?

If I can also confirm another question, LEED specific. I understand 90.1 is
the only appropriate base case for LEED even in Washington state, even if
portions of their energy code are more stringent, correct? The requirement
to achieve a 10% reduction is how I think LEED addresses more stringent
state codes so the base doesn't need to be written specific to those
(numerous) state codes. Correct? One comment from the client leads me to
think that complying with WA code might explain the difference in equipment
efficiencies used in the base case, and even though it doesn't add up I want
to confirm my understanding.

Another issue that further confuses this is that the modeler apparently
chose two of the systems to be variable speed (all are system type 4,
constant volume in 90.1) and I'm not sure why. The original modeler is not
available for questioning. Any ideas? The VFD's were applied to an office
space and data/server room packaged heat pumps, but not a large storage
space. Based on what I know right now, it seems those should be modeled
constant volume. If I'm updating the base model, I think it makes sense to
correct this if the base incorrectly models a more efficient system.

Lastly, can anyone tell me how to change the project descriptor at the top
left of the sim reports? It's got some boilerplate name and it sure would
be nice to have the filename show, or at least a single descriptor I can
update in each model run.

Thanks so much-

Laura