[Equest-users] [Bldg-sim] Fwd: [Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads Conundrum

[Carol Gardner]

My apologies also for cross-posting. Bldg-rate does not know me and I simply
do not have time to correct that right now.

First, please, please all of you, keep this sort of discussion on line where
it needs to be! I can't imagine why it would go offline for any other reason
except for two: people are afraid they might say something *wrong, or people
are afraid someone or some organization might in some way get back at
them.*I, for one, refuse to live like that. It's possible that every
one of you is
smarter than me, but I think we all make mistakes and have concerns. So be
it.

Second, wow it's a day of lists for me, I no longer have to worry about
gaming the system in that I am no longer a project engineer. I am very clear
that I do not ever intentionally do it myself on any of my projects. I meet
the technical requirements that are placed before me with as much integrity
as possible.

As do all of you.

Please speak up and don't be afraid of anyone or any organization.

Personal regards to all of you,

Carol

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:

>  Firstly, apologies for the cross-posting, but it appears this topic has
> grown include many lists so I can’t come up with an alternative!
>
>
>
> Secondly, a huge thanks to Carol, James and a large number of others (who
> shall remain unnamed until they should decide to join the public discussion)
> who have given me direct input on their personal thoughts, outside of the
> mailing lists.
>
>
>
> I have received a flood of suggestions regarding approaches when the intent
> is to follow the 25% rule, and additionally regarding how one might go about
> appeasing a USGBC LEED model reviewer when attempting to document a lower
> figure.  My impression up until this point, based on colleagues’
> experience/advice, has been that attempting to substantiate anything less
> than 25% process loads would be a futile task and would be flatly rejected.
> As a result I never really considered this to be an option available to us
> LEED energy modelers.  I now understand that for many, documenting something
> less than 25% has proven a feasible, if occasionally exhaustive, task.
>
>
>
> When the intent is to follow the 25% baseline process load prescriptive
> requirement, I have been exposed (again outside of the lists) to a
> surprising number of unique viewpoints and seemingly legitimate approaches
> which have led to successfully reviewed LEED model submissions for others.
>
>
>
> Among the approaches to build the process loads to 25% are:
>
> -          Adding a single direct internal/external load to the project
> electrical meter in addition to the designed space equipment loads – this
> approach avoids additional internal heat gains.
>
> -          Adding additional or redefining designed space equipment loads,
> adding internal heat sources.  If and when these additional loads should
> result in too many unmet cooling hours in the proposed model, there are two
> basic approaches:
>
> o   Specify larger system cooling capacities and/or airflows
>
> o   Allow those systems cooling capacities/airflows to auto-size
>
> -          *Keeping* the designed space equipment loads without adding any
> further, but modifying their utilization schedules to increase space
> equipment usage during non-peak cooling hours – this of course adds heat to
> the models, but avoids unmet cooling hours due to clashes with proposed
> system cooling capacities.
>
>
>
> I sincerely hope Carol and others will not misunderstand… Myself and others
> do not wish to “game the system,” but we seem to have a variety of
> viewpoints as to what the intent is for the 25% rule.
>
>
>
> If it may help and add to the discussion, my personal opinion leading up to
> this inquiry has been that the default 25% rule exists simultaneously as a
> means of normalizing the “difficulty level” of attaining LEED EAc1 points
> for projects with various actual process loads.  Perhaps at some point in
> time, somebody decided it would be unfair for someone designing a LEED
> Platinum toolshed with zero process loads to have an easier time of it than
> some poor sucker trying to get some EAc1 credits for an automotive
> manufacturing facility with immense process loads?
>
>
>
> I will unfortunately be unable to participate in or respond to this topic
> of discussion for some time as I will be away from my inbox.  I very much
> look forward to gaining a better understanding of how we as a group might
> come to agree on a “best practice” for this issue.  If anyone should
> currently have access to a relevant CIR that would probably be very useful.
>
>
>
> A humble thanks again to everyone,
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Carol Gardner
> *Sent:* Friday, April 30, 2010 5:12 PM
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; eQUEST Users List
> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Fwd: [Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads
> Conundrum
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Carol Gardner* <cmg750 at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads Conundrum
> To: James Hess <JHess at tmecorp.com>, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>,
> Karen Walkerman <kwalkerman at gmail.com>
> Cc: "bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org" <bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I'm glad you raised this issue.
>
> First, I agree with James, and have heard from other people, that LEED
> accepts documentation saying something as basic as "hey, I don't have 25%
> plug loads".
>
> Second, when you have to create a baseline to measure up from, you are
> forced to say what that baseline is. For instance, in 1985-86, working on
> the BPA-funded Energy Edge project, we had to figure out the baseline for a
> group of buildings being designed to exceed the current energy codes by 30%.
> We didn't have a baseline then. To deal with this we assembled a group of
> people that we euphemistically called The Greybeards (so sorry to you all).
> The tables now known as G3.1.1A & G3.1.1B in Standard 90 came out of what we
> created in that moment of time. We were trying to limit what is called
> "gaming the system"
>
> So now it seems it has been deemed important to control the baseline a
> little more: by specifying plug loads at 25%. The goal of trying to limit
> gaming the system might be the source of the 25%. The danger which Nick has
> clearly demonstrated in his email is that what is meant to control gaming
> the system, may now actually be creating it.
>
> Further thoughts/comments welcome,
>
> Carol
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM, James Hess <JHess at tmecorp.com> wrote:
>
>   This is a good question.  On prior projects we have worked on, I have
> found that you can have less than 25% plug loads, so long as you have some
> documentation to back it up.
>
>
>
> For example, we are currently working on a prison project.  The plug loads
> are very low for obvious reasons; they don’t provide stereos, computers,
> ipods, TV’s, etc. to the inmates (typically, all they get is an alarm
> clock/radio that uses ~ < 10 watts).  There is no way on this project that
> we could get the plug loads to come in at 25% unless we artificially jacked
> them up to levels that would never exist in reality.  We would have a
> similar problem in that the Proposed Design equipment would not be able to
> cool the spaces.  So, we just document the loads we do have and I believe we
> are good.  The project has been through the 1st review and this has not
> come up as an issue.
>
>
>
> I believe we have had other projects where we documented the loads we had
> and passed the review with no problems.  We will typically develop a simple
> spreadsheet and document the internal loads that each room has.  That is
> easy enough to do these days I believe, for most applications.  For example,
> a typical desktop computer uses about 65 watts on average, monitor = ~ 45
> watts (depending on size), clock radio ~ 10 to 15 watts, etc. you get the
> point.  (get a “Killawatt” power meter from Amazon and have some fun taking
> some measurements to see approximately how much power stuff uses, guaranteed
> to provide hours of fun).
>
>
>
> Just provide some documentation on some good reasonable estimates for the
> loads and I think you will be fine.
>
>
>
> An alternate method is to use default values from Table G-B from the ASHRAE
> 90.1-2007 Users Manual.
>
>
>
> For example, the Receptacle Power Density for the Office Building Type is
> 0.75 watts/SF per Table G-5.
>
>
>
> If using that value results in the process loads being less than 25%, my
> comment to the reviewers would be that the 0.75 watts/SF is the value
> determined by ASHRAE to be appropriate for the building type.
>
>
>
> I think the most important thing is to use something reasonable and
> defendable, and make it the same between the Baseline and Proposed Design
> energy models.  Our experience indicates that it does not have to be exactly
> 25%, can be less than 25% or greater than 25%, depending on the building.
>
>
>
> One thing that is interesting is that on federal projects, per EPACT
> requirements, you do not have to factor in the process/recep loads for the
> purpose of determining whether the 30% savings requirement has been met.
> That makes it easier to show 30% savings.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> JAH
>
> * *
>
> *James A.  Hess, PE, CEM*
>
> Senior Energy Engineer
>
> TME, Inc.
>
> Little Rock, AR
>
> Mobile: 501-351-4667
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton
> *Sent:* Friday, April 30, 2010 12:55 PM
>
>
> *To:* bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads Conundrum
>
>
>
> Something new occurred to me this week and I’d love to hear others’
> thoughts!
>
>
>
> LEED prescribes baseline/proposed energy models to follow ASHRAE 90.1 with
> a caveat:  the “process energy costs” must total 25% of the baseline energy
> costs.  By extension, 90.1 requires the same loads/schedules be applied to
> the proposed model as they have to match.  As an aside, the LEED EAc1
> templates appear to calculate/check this using process energy consumption
> (not cost), but that’s not what I’m getting at…
>
>
>
> I just had a typical case where I had to inflate the baseline internal
> miscellaneous equipment loads to get to 25%.  These additional loads were
> substantial enough that when applied to the proposed model/design, I ran
> into many unmet cooling hours for the equipment capacities entered.
>
>
>
> Then I realized:  We can define additional equipment electricity loads but
> simultaneously apply a multiplier (in eQuest anyway – I expect this is
> feasible other programs also) to reduce/negate the corresponding heat load
> contributions.  This results in the energy consumption/costs showing up
> correctly in the final results/reports, but does not artificially inflate
> the internal loads that the baseline/proposed systems must handle.
>
>
>
> Would this practice (which incidentally can be a time saver) of accounting
> for extra process/miscellaneous loads without extra thermal contributions be
> in line with the intent of ASHRAE/USGBC?  It would still normalize the
> otherwise unstandardized process consumption/costs of the baseline/proposed
> models between different building types…
>
>
>
> On the other hand, if it really is the intent of USGBC to add arbitrary
> additional internal heat loads to our models that our actual designs were
> not designed and sized for, does it follow that we should allow the proposed
> models to autosize cooling equipment/fan capacities and not specify them
> (this would seem incongruous with 90.1 to me)?
>
>
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-rate mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100430/dbd681e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100430/dbd681e3/attachment.jpeg>