I am trying to do energy model for 3 buildings in a campus. Each
building is seeking separate LEED certification. We have a new central
plant with Ice storage which will serve all three buildings. I have a
USGBC guideline "Required Treatment of District Thermal Energy
in LEED-NC version 2.2 and LEED for Schools" dated May 28, 2008, which
discusses about how to carry out the energy modeling. I am wondering is
there a similar document for LEED version 3. If there is no such
document released by USGBC for version 3, then if I follow the
aforementioned document, the problem I have is, it reference everything
back to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 but LEED V3 follows 90.1-2007. Can anyone guide
me how to approach this situation?
Thanks,
Yuvaraj
Yuvaraj,
As far as I know they have not released a new document specifically for LEED v3. I would assume that you can use the document you have listed below, reference ASHRAE 90.1-2007 (not 2004), and include a note about the assumption in your EAc1 narrative.
Heather Hardie-Hill
Thanks all for your replies!
I found the following excerpt from USGBC website:
"District Thermal Energy Treatment
(PDF) -- Treatment
of Energy & Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for LEED buildings that
are connected to a district thermal energy system. LEED 2009 projects
should follow the guidance in this document until the LEED 2009 DES
document is posted. Please note that any mention of the 2-point minimum
in this document should be translated to apply towards the minimum EAp2
prerequisite for LEED 2009."
Interestingly, it talks about the minimum 2 point requirement but not
about ASHARE standard. I think it is logical to follow Heathers
suggestion and use 2007.
Regards,
Yuvaraj
Not to complicate the subject. One additional question in this subject.
This project is in California. Another USGBC guideline states that
Title 24 - 2005 is equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1-2004. LEED V3 also allows
to use a Title 24 as baseline. So, if I want to use Title - 24 as my
baseline for the LEED purpose (to avoid additional modeling) how do I do
that? USGBC guideline for DES "Required Treatment of District Thermal
Energy in LEED-NC version 2.2 and LEED for Schools" primarily talks
about ASHRAE 90.1 in the step 2 when changing systems. Any suggestion is
greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Yuvaraj
Yuvaraj,
In order for a modeling software (i.e. eQuest) to be used for Title 24
compliance, it needs to be approved by the California Energy Commission
to do so. EQuest version 3.63b has been approved for T24-2005, and
version 3.64 has been submitted for approval for T24-2008, but has not
yet been approved. Basically, you can't use eQuest for compliance with
T24-2008 (yet). HOWEVER, LEED 2009 references T24-2005 so you can use
it for your LEED submittal, but you still need to show T24 compliance...
You're in a pickle, and there's no easy way around it. Hopefully 3.64
gets approved soon..
Best of luck,
Greg Collins
Does anyone know how the USGBC is going to treat the delta-EAc1 point
difference between the Stand-Alone and Aggregate scenarios will be in
LEED 2009? Our assumption was that more points should be available
seeing how 4 points under NC 2.2 corresponded to 14% energy cost savings
and that same 14% savings under LEED 2009 is actually worth 7 points.
Kendra L. Scott, LEED AP
Yuvaraj---
This is addressed directly in the LEED Reference Guide for Green
Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition. Starting on page 267
they go through various central plant scenarios and how they should be
treated. For a district CHP, they reference the same "Required
Treatment of District Thermal Energy, May 2008" that you mention below.
I don't see it clearly addressed, but it seems that you should replace
any reference to 90.1-2004 to 90.1-2007 for a LEED 2009 project if
that's what you used to develop the baseline. Might be worth a CIR
though? Good luck.
Regards,
Andrew Craig EIT, LEED AP
I gave a presentation on this subject in November and the v3 equivalent document was "coming any day now" back then - I haven't seen it yet, although I'm pretty sure someone is working very hard on generating one. I haven't looked for it since then either. If not, you can probably use the current Reference Guide along with the 2.2 DES document.
At the time, there was this post from Gail Hampsmire...
http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/2009-October/020350.html
...suggesting you make adjustments for EAP2, etc. I would assume this includes substitution of the current energy codes for the prior ones when referring to your registered project. I'm not sure if there will be other major changes to how the comparisons are structured, or changes in the default DES efficiencies.
Also, will the DES plant be included with one of the three certifications? Then at least you may only have to guess for two of the projects!
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, HBDP
Thanks all for your replies!
I found the following excerpt from USGBC website:
"District Thermal Energy Treatment
(PDF) -- Treatment
of Energy & Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for LEED buildings that
are connected to a district thermal energy system. LEED 2009 projects
should follow the guidance in this document until the LEED 2009 DES
document is posted. Please note that any mention of the 2-point minimum
in this document should be translated to apply towards the minimum EAp2
prerequisite for LEED 2009."
Interestingly, it talks about the minimum 2 point requirement but not
about ASHARE standard. I think it is logical to follow Heathers
suggestion and use 2007.
Regards,
Yuvaraj
Not to complicate the subject. One additional question in this subject.
This project is in California. Another USGBC guideline states that
Title 24 - 2005 is equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1-2004. LEED V3 also allows
to use a Title 24 as baseline. So, if I want to use Title - 24 as my
baseline for the LEED purpose (to avoid additional modeling) how do I do
that? USGBC guideline for DES "Required Treatment of District Thermal
Energy in LEED-NC version 2.2 and LEED for Schools" primarily talks
about ASHRAE 90.1 in the step 2 when changing systems. Any suggestion is
greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Yuvaraj