<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Varkie, I can see merits for the 2.1 method and the 2.2
method. On the one hand, the process loads are to some degree out of
our control. But on the other hand, if you have a building with such
massive load density why would the rating system want to exclude all of that
energy from sustainable practices?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I like
the idea of consistency when considering all of the energy for energy
optimization, on-site renewables and green power - there are projects
out there that might earn fewer EAC1 points under v2.2 than under
2.1. The percentage savings were changed between the versions so it's hard
to say if it is more or less likely to earn a certain amount of EAC1 points
- I would be interested to see a summary if the data is available about
EAC1 points under v2.1 compared to v2.2. Probably about the
same?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>For a
high load density building like yours - definitely going to be harder. The
only suggestion as far as EAC1 points that I could offer would that if your
design has receptacle load at 6 W/ft2 there is probably a significant
diversity in that load, maybe it won't turn out as badly as you
fear.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In
regard to ventilation, you are going to use the outside air requirements from
the proposed design and apply that outside air quantity to both
models. There isn't a "baseline ventilation rate" - use equal
CFM of OA for both models. Also, OA may be determined from local building
codes rather than ASHRAE - that would also apply equally to both
models.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
one exception would be that Demand Control Ventilation could potentially be used
in the proposed model to reduce OA if DCV isn't required prescriptively, and if
your minimum OA from code is less than what is required by ASHRAE
62.</FONT></SPAN><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hope
this helps!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>David</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Varkie Thomas<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Monday, March 05, 2007 9:14 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [BLDG-SIM] Process Loads and
LEED<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>LEED-NC Version 2.2 page 173 "Optimize Energy Performance" states
"Demonstrate a <STRONG><FONT color=red>percentage</FONT></STRONG> improvement
in the proposed building performance -- " and "For the purpose of this
analysis, process energy is considered to include, but is not limited to,
office and general miscellaneous equipment, computers, elevators &
escalators, kitchen cooking & refrigeration, laundry washing & drying
--- "</P>
<P>On page 174 "For EA Credit 1, process loads shall be identical for both the
baseline building performance and the proposed building performance"</P>
<P>Assuming the same space process load is used in the baseline and
proposed, then a building with a receptacle load density of say 1.0 w/sf
will produce a much greater percent savings compared to the same building with
a receptacle load density of say 6 w/sf.</P>
<P>Page 173 "must comply with the mandatory provisions (Sections --- ) in
Standard 90.1-2004 (without amendments)" There is no mention of
Standards 62 for ventilation & occupancy density or Standard 55 for
indoor comfort conditions. Does this mean that the baseline can be based
on the proposed ventilation, occupancy density and indoor comfort
conditions? According to Standard 62-2004 the occupancy density for
general office space is 200 sf/P (from 142 sf/P in 62-2001 and I think 100
sf/P earlier). This produces a low percent system outdoor air and energy
conservation measures such as "occupancy based ventilation" and "outdoor air
to relief air heat recovery" have little effect. Std 62-2004 (also Std
90.1-2004 for lighting) provides design criteria for a limited number of space
types such as a prison cell (improved from 50 sf/P & 20 cfm/P in 62-2001
to 40 sf/P & 10 cfm/P in 62-2004) . This makes it difficult to
determine baselin e conditions using Std 62.</P>
<P>I am looking at a financial institution building with high occupancy and
receptacle load densities.</P><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></BLOCKQUOTE><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></BODY></HTML>