<!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 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=278271217-27012009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I would agree that a Washington State Energy Code Minimum
building will not likely get you a point in NC 2.2 EA Cr 1. I've seen
savings in the 5-10% range for office buildings with similar system types and
conventional lighting densities and controls. I believe EA Cr 1
(correctly) encourages more innovation than just a simple HVAC system selection
over another that meets code minimum. You really need an integrated design
approach to achieve EA Cr 1 (envelope upgrades, lighting upgrades including
controls, HVAC upgrades, etc.).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face="Franklin Gothic Book" size=2>Mark Nieman, PE,
CEM | McKinstry | Sr. Energy Engineer</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT
face="Franklin Gothic Book" size=2>d 206.832.8152 | m 206.510.4760 | f
206.832.8552</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT
face="Franklin Gothic Book" color=#474747 size=2>FOR THE</FONT><B></B><B> <FONT
face="Franklin Gothic Book" color=#365f91 size=2>LIFE</FONT></B><FONT
face="Franklin Gothic Book" color=#474747 size=2> OF YOUR BUILDING</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim
Dion<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:47 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
'bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Bldg-sim] LEED
EaC1<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=078133616-27012009>I've been hearing
from a number of sources that you can get 2 EaC1 LEED points under NC 2.2 just
by modeling a State Code Building against an ASHRAE Appendix G Baseline
building.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=078133616-27012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=078133616-27012009>This has not been
the case with any of the LEED simulations I've done with eQuest. Typically a
Washington Energy Code 2006 building against an ASHRAE Appendix G building comes
in with an energy cost reduction of about 5%, which doesn't achieve 1
point. This is typically with a Design system consisting of WSHPs
served by a central condenser water plant with dual condensing boilers and a
fluid cooler vs a Baseline system consisting of PSZ DX Cooling, Gas Furnace
Heat. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=078133616-27012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=078133616-27012009>I'm curious what
others have experienced in this regards.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Tim Dion, LEED® AP
<BR>Mechanical<BR><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">HARGIS ENGINEERS</SPAN></B>
<BR>600 Stewart Street <BR>Suite 1000 <BR>Seattle, WA 98101 <BR><A
style="COLOR: #808080; TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="http://www.hargis.biz/">www.hargis.biz</A> <BR><BR></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>This email is the property of McKinstry or one of its affiliates and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail.
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
</BODY></HTML>