<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<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=025560622-06032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I went
back and looked at the public review version of LEED 2.2 dated December 2004 on
the cover and October 19 in the footer. Here is how the original credit
was proposed:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=025560622-06032007>
<P align=left><EM><SPAN class=025560622-06032007>"</SPAN>Must be compared
against a baseline building that both complies with Appendix G to Standard
90.1-2004 (without amendments) and that has a process energy consumption that
is<SPAN class=025560622-06032007> </SPAN>a minimum of 25% of the total energy
consumption for the baseline building.<SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>"</SPAN></EM></P>
<P align=left><SPAN class=025560622-06032007><SPAN
class=025560622-06032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In the final
version of the the LEED 2.2 dated October 2005 that same verbiage had been
changed to </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></P><SPAN class=025560622-06032007><SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>
<P align=left><EM><SPAN class=025560622-06032007>"Must </SPAN>be compared
against a baseline building that complies with Appendix G to Standard<SPAN
class=025560622-06032007> </SPAN>90.1-2004 (without amendments). The default
process energy cost is 25% of the total energy<SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>"</SPAN></EM></P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> <SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>I think the intent is that the default process energy
cost used in the calculation of LEED credits for V2.2 is a max of 25%. If
your building has 60% process energy you would only have to count that portion
of process energy that equals 25% of the total energy. This
would level the playing field for all buildings regardless of how much process
energy is used. If a building uses less than 25% then you have to justify
the legitimacy of that claim. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>I think someone should submit a CIR asking whether this
is the correct interpretation of the Credit.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>Respectfully,</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=025560622-06032007>Mike</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P align=left></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face="Swis721 Blk BT"
size=2>Michael Tillou, PE</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT
face="Swis721 Blk BT" size=1>ETC Group - Energy Engineering for a Sustainable
Future</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face="Swis721 Blk BT"
size=1>Ph:413-458-9870</FONT></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
BLDG-SIM@gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Varkie
Thomas<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:23 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR><B>Cc:</B> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[BLDG-SIM] Process Loads and LEED<BR><BR></FONT></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
<vaipotnis@hotmail.com> <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">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=1>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" <BrandonN@Hargis.biz></I><BR>Reply-To:
<I>BrandonN@Hargis.biz</I><BR>To: <I><BLDG-SIM@gard.com></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>
<META content="Microsoft SafeHTML" name=Generator></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=081323618-05032007><FONT
face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2>Varkie,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=081323618-05032007>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=971281318-05032007><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>Something we have been noticing in schools lately
is <SPAN class=081323618-05032007>a </SPAN>high receptacle load, which
we believe is attributable to increased usage of computers<SPAN
class=081323618-05032007>, 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 face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007>In researching an energy question for a school
today, I came across <SPAN class=081323618-05032007>this web page and
</SPAN>case study which I thought was relevant to your question<SPAN
class=081323618-05032007>:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN
class=081323618-05032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007><A
href="http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management"
target=1>http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN
class=081323618-05032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=971281318-05032007><A
href="http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/power_mgt/North_Thurston_Case_Study.pdf"
target=1><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 face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007>Essentially they summarize how<SPAN
class=081323618-05032007>, by consistently implementing </SPAN>power
management on computer monitors and CPUs using a simple utility
program, <SPAN class=081323618-05032007>a</SPAN> cost savings
of an estimated $15-$30 per computer per year<SPAN
class=081323618-05032007> 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 face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007>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
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN
class=081323618-05032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007>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
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007>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
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN
class=081323618-05032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007>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
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN
class=081323618-05032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007><SPAN
class=518430319-05032007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=971281318-05032007><SPAN class=081323618-05032007><SPAN
class=518430319-05032007>Regards</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=081323618-05032007><FONT
face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><FONT
face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff 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=1>www.hargis.biz</A><BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR>
<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 7:14 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>
<P><SPAN> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: David S Eldridge
<DSE@grummanbutkus.com> <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">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A> <BR><SPAN
class=632592915-05032007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN><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></P>
<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></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><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>