<html><div style='background-color:'><P>Raman,</P>
<P>I am assuming you are asking wrt LEED 2.2. </P>
<P>USGBC has accpeted T-24-2005 to be as stringent as ASHRAE 90.1-2004.</P>
<DIV>
<P>Vaibhav Potnis <BR>Green Building Services, Inc.</P>
<P><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif"><A href="http://www.greenbuildingservices.com">www.greenbuildingservices.com</A></FONT></P>
<P><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif"> </P>
<P>
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
</P>
<P>From: <I>"Ramana Koti" <ramana.koti@gmail.com></I><BR>Reply-To: <I>ramana.koti@gmail.com</I><BR>To: <I><BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM></I><BR>Subject: <I>[BLDG-SIM] Title 24 Vs ASHRAE 90.1-2004</I><BR>Date: <I>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:10:03 -0500</I><BR><BR>Dear all,<BR><BR>With regards to energy efficiency standard for an office building in California, as of today, how does Title 24 compare with ASHRAE 90.1-2004? Any commonly accepted opinion on relative stringency?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Ramana Koti, Sustainable Building Analyst<BR>LEED AP<BR><BR>ELEMENTS | a division of berkebile nelson immenschuh mcdowell architects<BR>106 W. 14th Street Suite 200<BR>Kansas City, Missouri 64105<BR><BR>p 816.783.1635 f 816.783.1501<BR>www.bnim.com| <A href="http://elements.bnim.com/">elements.bnim.com</A><BR><BR>Mobile Phone: 480.326.9275 <BR></P></FONT></DIV></div></html>
<PRE>
======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</PRE>