The exact wording of the LEED v2.2 requirements may be helpful in moving this discussion forward. Per LEED EAc1 requirements:<br><br>"<span style="font-style: italic;">The default process energy cost (must) be 25% of the total energy cost for the Baseline building. For buildings where the process energy cost is less than 25% of the baseline building energy cost, the LEED submittal must include supporting documentation substantiating that process energy inputs are appropriate.
</span>"<br>...<br>"<span style="font-style: italic;">For EA Credit 1, process loads shall be identical for both the Baseline building performance rating and for the Proposed building performance rating. However, project teams may follow the Exceptional Calculation Method (ASHRAE
90.1-2004 G2.5) to document measures that reduce process loads. Documentation of process load energy savings shall include a list of the assumptions made for both the base and proposed design, and theoretical or empirical information supporting these assumptions.
</span>"<br><br>Buildings with 60% process energy cost probably will likely be negatively impacted by these modeling requirements (it is probable that these buildings will have a tougher time showing substantial Percentage Energy Improvement than buildings having only 25% process loads). However, if the project can demonstrate that energy improvements have been made to the process energy systems versus standard practice, then the energy savings achieved through these process system efficiency measures can be used to document improved Percentage Improvement using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology. As Leonard mentioned, the process energy will also impact cooling loads substantially, and improvements to the cooling equipment and controls would also help the overall building performance.
<br><br>Gail Stranske<br>CTG Energetics, Inc.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Leonard Sciarra</b> <<a href="mailto:leonard_sciarra@gensler.com">leonard_sciarra@gensler.com</a>
> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Maybe I am naive, and I have not read the NC 2.2 reference
guide yet, but process loads would affect an internally load dominated building,
ie, my cooling loads would be different hence my equipment selection between a
low density office vs a "financial trading floor" type situation. LEED and
gaming the system aside, from a real design point they are important, and could
affect envelope component selection.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2">Leonard Sciarra, AIA, LEED
ap<br>312.577.6580 (Dir)<br>G E N S L E R | Architecture & Design
Worldwide<br>30 West Monroe Street<br>Chicago IL, 60603
<br>312.456.0123<br><a href="mailto:leonard_sciarra@gensler.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">leonard_sciarra@gensler.com</a>
</font></div>
<div> </div><br>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Varkie Thomas<br><b>Sent:</b>
Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:23 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a><br><b>Cc:</b>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] Process Loads and
LEED<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>
<p>Vaibhav: Your reference makes the situation worse. </p>
<p>The LEED energy savings rating system using the bottom line <strong><font color="red">percent</font></strong> savings over baseline appears to penalize
buildings with high process loads when you also consider LEED-NC Version 2.2 EA
Credit 1 page 174 "The default process energy cost is 25% of the total energy
<strong><font color="red">cost</font></strong> for the baseline
building". </p>
<p>What has the <font color="black">process energy </font><font color="black">cost</font> (or the process energy use) got to do with building
design related to energy efficiency (architecture-envelope, lighting, HVAC,
DHW) except power supply for the process? The process energy within an
office building can vary from 0.5 w/sf (minimal use of
computers and office equipment) to more than 6.0 w/sf for a financial/trading
(Wall Street) type of building. If the baseline process energy is
limited to 25% percent of total and the proposed process energy use is more than
60% of the total then does this mean that the building design is energy
inefficient and does not qualify for LEED certification?</p>
<p>Process energy could be part of the analysis if there is a baseline
standard for various types of computer and office equipment (varies considerably
and hard to define and prescribe for the numerous types processes that occur in
just office buildings) and the equivalent proposed equipment is more
efficient. This comes under "Exceptional Calculation Method" category
along with several other energy efficient building design options such as
double-wall buildings for which you get 1 point (I think).</p>
<p>According to LEED-NC Version 2.2 EA Credit 1 page 174 "process energy is
considered to include, but is not limited to, office & general
miscellaneous equipment, computers, elevators & escalators, kitchen cooking
& refrigeration, laundry washing & drying, lighting exempt from lighting
power allowance (e.g. lighting integral to medical equipment) and other (e.g.
waterfall pumps). Do all submissions for LEED certification include all
this. At the construction documents submission stage, what is the level of
modeling detail that is required regarding floor spaces and zones and all the
systems, plant and equipment shown on the drawings and specifications. Can
you use eQUEST, select the type of building, and let the "Wizard" do the
zoning and assume most of the baseline data? I don't
think we are all playing the same game, on the same level playing field and
using the same rules to show percent energy savings for LEED certification.</p>
<p>I also have some reservations about how various energy saving systems are
modeled with different computer programs. The programs should be
studied and compared with the same case studies of different types of buildings
with different systems and plants and showing how each program should
be used to demonstrate energy savings from different energy conservation
measures such as UFAD. </p>
<p>Building operation data can now be viewed on the web, collected for
meaurement & verification (M&V) and can be used to check computer
modeling results. In the case of a M&V project at IIT, the web based
control systems show mainly temperatures. Sub-meters and data loggers
should be included in the control specifications so that the performance of the
major systems, plant & equipment can be monitored separately and compared
with computer results. At the moment we are comparing the building utility
meter reading with the bottom line building energy use calculated by the
computer program. </p>
<p>Process loads do not affect energy code and Std-90 compliance since "<font color="black">percentages</font>" are not involved. </p>
<p>V.C. Thomas</p>
<p><br>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: Vaibhav Potnis
<<a href="mailto:vaipotnis@hotmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">vaipotnis@hotmail.com</a>> <br>Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 8:14 am
<br>Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Process Loads and LEED <br>To: <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a> <br></p>
<p>However I wanted to point out that for a LEED energy analysis, process energy
has to be maintained at 25% of total energy cost of the Baseline Building
Performance ( LEED- 2.2 Ref Guide page 182). I prefer taking exceptional
calculatins for process energy to simplify the calculations as well as the
review.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.<br></p>
<div>
<p>Vaibhav Potnis <br><a href="http://www.greenbuildingservices.com/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">www.greenbuildingservices.com</a></p>
<p><font style="font-size: 11px; font-family: tahoma,sans-serif;">
<hr color="#a0c6e5" size="1">
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>From: <i>"Brandon Nichols" <<a href="mailto:BrandonN@Hargis.biz" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BrandonN@Hargis.biz</a>></i><br>Reply-To:
<i><a href="mailto:BrandonN@Hargis.biz" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BrandonN@Hargis.biz</a></i><br>To: <i><<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>></i><br>Subject:
<i>[BLDG-SIM] Process Loads and LEED</i><br>Date: <i>Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:05:04
-0800</i><br><br></p>
</font></p></div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(160, 198, 229); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2">Varkie,</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><span><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2">Something we have been noticing in schools lately
is <span>a </span>high receptacle load, which we
believe is attributable to increased usage of computers<span>, approaching and in some areas exceeding 5 W per
square foot -- the kinds of loads I used to figure for "technology
intensive" office areas just a few years
ago.</span></font></font></font></span></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span>In researching an energy question for a school today,
I came across <span>this web page and
</span>case study which I thought was relevant to your question<span>:</span></span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span><span></span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span><span><a href="http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management</a></span></span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span><span></span></span></font> </div>
<div><font size="-0"><span><a href="http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/power_mgt/North_Thurston_Case_Study.pdf" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><font face="Lucida Console"><font size="2">
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/power_mgt/North_Thurston_Case_Study.pdf</font></font></a></span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span>Essentially they summarize how<span>, by consistently implementing </span>power
management on computer monitors and CPUs using a simple utility
program, <span>a</span> cost savings of an
estimated $15-$30 per computer per year<span> can be
realized (on personal workstations I would add, not systems required to be
continuously online)</span>. Multiplied across thousands of computers,
the bottom line annual savings can be substantial.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span>How to account for
this in energy modeling software I have a general
idea:</span></span></font></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span></span></span></font></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span>1) Assign the baseline
receptacle load to "occupied hours"; e.g. 5 W/SF 'always
on'</span></span></font></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span>2) Assign a
diversified receptacle load schedule to the alternate
analyses</span></span></font></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span></span></span></font></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span>But quantifying the
diversified load schedule is the hard part -- it will no doubt vary
significantly depending on the occupancy. Though not fully
developed, this may provide a starting point for one method to reduce
process electrical loads in a LEED
analysis.</span></span></font></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2"><span><span></span></span></font></font></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span><span><span></span></span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"><span><span><span>Regards</span></span></span></font></div></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2"></font></span> </div><font color="#0000ff" face="Lucida Console" size="2">Brandon Nichols,
PE<br>Mechanical<br>HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>600 Stewart St<br>Suite
1000<br>Seattle, WA 98101<br>d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707<br>o |
206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450<br><a href="http://www.hargis.biz/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">www.hargis.biz</a><br></font><br>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Varkie Thomas<br><b>Sent:</b>
Monday, March 05, 2007 7:14 AM<br><b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a><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>
<p><span> ----- Original Message ----- <br>From: David S Eldridge
<<a href="mailto:DSE@grummanbutkus.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">DSE@grummanbutkus.com</a>> <br>Date: Monday, March 5, 2007 10:36 am
<br>Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Process Loads and LEED <br>To: <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a> <br><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">
</font></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" 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></span></p>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" 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><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" 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><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" 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><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" 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><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Hope
this helps!</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">David</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div></blockquote><pre>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed <br>to the <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</a> mailing list. To unsubscribe <br>from this mailing list send a blank message to <br><a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</a>
</pre></div>
</blockquote></div><br>