<div>You are missing the fact that the rules are being changed at the REVIEW stage. This requires the energy modeler to do a-lot of extra work to change the baseline model during the review stage. It also means that after changing the model, if the reviewer has any additional comments or questions, the energy modeler will have to go through an additional review, and pay an additional fee to have the USGBC look at their documentation again.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Also, the fact that this rule seems to be implemented for some projects, and not for others means that buildings are not being rated fairly against each other.</div><div><br></div><div>The debate about whether this makes sense or not should be kept separate from this discussion. My main concern is that rules are being changed without letting the players know. Any time they make changes, it needs to be documented publicly, preferably with changes only applying to projects registered after the date of publication.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We can debate separately whether this rule change makes sense. Yes, I understand that some "gaming" of the system could happen, in theorgy, but in many cases, adding HUGE amounts of outdoor ventilation air as you suggest is far too costly to implement.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Karen Walkerman</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:13 AM, James Hansen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JHANSEN@ghtltd.com">JHANSEN@ghtltd.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I’m not sure I really understand what the fuss is
about. If you’re designing and modeling a building that does NOT
have DCV, then it seems entirely fair (and accurate) to model the same
ventilation rates in both the baseline and the proposed. If, however, you
are implementing a DCV strategy, then regardless of what you set your “maximum”
OA rate at for the proposed model, in reality, the DCV system is going to keep
OA flow rates near or below the ASHRAE 62.1 requirements (in real life operation).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">If the TAG committee didn’t require you to model the
baseline building at ASHRAE 62.1 flow rates when DCV is being implemented, then
theoretically you could input an astronomically high OA flow rate for both
models, knowing that your proposed model would NEVER run at such a condition
and would have an unfair advantage.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">This seems like an entirely acceptable and fair ruling.
What am I missing?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:teal">GHT Limited<br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="color:black">James Hansen</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">, PE,
LEED AP</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">Senior Associate</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><span style="color:black">1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><span style="color:black">Arlington</span><span style="color:black">, </span><span style="color:black">VA</span><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="color:black">22201-4749</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:black">703-338-5754 (Cell)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:black">703-243-1200 (Office)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:black">703-276-1376 (Fax)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:teal"><a href="http://www.ghtltd.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">www.ghtltd.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#31849B"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">
<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Karen
Walkerman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a></span></p><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] GBCI comments on DCV (Carol Gardner)</div></div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is anyone on this list-serve on the EA Credit 1 committee,
or know someone who is? If the the GBCI or USGBC has changed the modeling
requirements and is only letting modelers know during the documentation review
stage, I find this very disturbing for a number of reasons. It would be
great if we can get some straight answers on this from someone at one of these
organizations who actually knows what is going on.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am happy to draft an email outlining concerns, but I don't
know who to send it to. If anyone does, or would like to help me with
this, please feel free to contact me directly.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karen Walkerman</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Peter Worley <<a href="mailto:peter.worley@arup.com" target="_blank">peter.worley@arup.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p>Sorry for what may seem like a dumb question... </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Why, if you're designing to ASHRAE 62.1, would you increase the outside air
quantity beyond the minimums (unless required for lab exhaust, etc)?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have a project where the local code (referencing IMC 2003) requires a
higher level of minimum ventilation than ASHRAE 62.1. I’ve therefore
designed to this amount and modeled it in both my proposed and baseline cases.
I can’t imagine that this will be problematic. Do you disagree?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Pete</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Peter Worley</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">Mechanical Engineer</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">155 Avenue of the Americas New
York NY 10013 USA</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">t</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> +1 212 229 2669 <b>d</b> +1 212 897 1339 </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">f</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> +1 212 229 1056</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"><a href="http://www.arup.com" target="_blank">www.arup.com</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"><img border="0" width="78" height="25" src="cid:image001.gif@01CB2D6B.FD22AD90" alt="ArupEmailLogo"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> Tom
Serra [mailto:<a href="mailto:tserra@emoenergy.com" target="_blank">tserra@emoenergy.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 26, 2010 12:14 PM</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Walkerman<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] GBCI comments on DCV (Carol Gardner)</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">No
documentation exists supporting the new method. GBCI is pulling the
"rating authority" card and implementing their own
requirements. I tried to argue my case that they are going against
the procedure in ASHRAE, but they did not change their requirement. I
have expressed my opinion that a document should be posted on the website that
shows this new requirement but I have yet to see anything new. Otherwise
you may be expecting savings from DCV that will be rejected and then the MEP or
modeler will look foolish. They should have implemented a cut-off date
for projects already in the system similar to the "District Thermal"
change they made in May 2008.</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
In reality the DCV will still result in energy savings but the paper design
savings will be lost. I believe GBCI and USGBC are trying to prevent
"gaming" of the system. A designer could grossly oversize the
ventilation system and then gain tremendous savings by implementing DCV.
This new requirement forces the designer to pursue other ventilation strategies
if they want to claim savings for DCV. Unfortunately the only way we are
learning of this requirement is through clarification questions. This
lack of communication is what really upsets me.<br>
<br>
The only solution that I see is that all spaces with demand control ventilation
should be designed to ASHRAE 62.1 minimums. Also, teams should not pursue
the 30% increase ventilation credit. <br>
<br>
Thomas Serra<br>
Project Manager<br>
EMO Energy Solutions, LLC<br>
3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 450<br>
Falls Church, VA 22042<br>
voice 703-205-0445 ex-113<br>
fax 703-205-0449<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Karen Walkerman <<a href="mailto:kwalkerman@gmail.com" target="_blank">kwalkerman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can
anyone find documentation requiring the baseline to use ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation
rates? The table in EA Credit 1 under HVAC System Selection for the
baseline design states:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Outdoor
ventilation rates should be identical to the proposed case"</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There
are no exceptions listed anywhere in the LEED documentation (I am currently
looking at LEED 2009, but have reviewed this in the past under LEED 2.2).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We
have had DCV be approved in the past with no questions.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karen</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Serra <<a href="mailto:tserra@emoenergy.com" target="_blank">tserra@emoenergy.com</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I've
had many comments. They have changed their perspective as the rating
authority and are requiring outside air treatment procedures that are outside
of ASHRAE 90.1 section G procedures. Typically design outside air volume
is the same between the baseline and proposed, but if you are using DCV they
now require you to model the baseline with the minimum ASHRAE 62.1
volume. So, if you have greater OA volume in your proposed model, you may
be penalized depending on your DCV method and diversity schedule for occupants
in the area with DCV control.<br>
<br>
Here is an example clarification question:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in"><b>1.</b><b><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="background:yellow">CLARIFY:</span></b><span style="background:yellow"> </span>Demand control ventilation was modeled
for credit for RTU1 and RTU2 in the Proposed case as indicated in Table 1.4 of
the Template; however, the outdoor air volume for RTU1 and RTU2 in the Baseline
model was not modeled at the ASHRAE 62.1-2004 minimum rates (1,066 cfm for each
RTU) as determined in EQp1: Minimum IAQ Performance. Appendix G allows schedule
changes for demand control ventilation as approved by the rating authority
(Table G3.1.4(Baseline)). As the rating authority, GBCI requires that the
outside air ventilation rates for the Baseline Case be modeled using minimum
ASHRAE 62.1-2004 rates wherever credit is taken for demand control ventilation
in the Proposed Case. The Proposed case minimum rates at design conditions must
be modeled as designed.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">TECHNICAL ADVICE:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Revise the Baseline model so the minimum outdoor air volume is
modeled at 1,066 cfm for RTU1 and RTU2 in the Baseline model. In addition,
provide revised SV-A reports for RTU1 and RTU2 reflecting the changes. Further,
verify that all systems in both the Baseline and Proposed case are modeled with
zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet unoccupied setback
temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate an alternate minimum
flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the unoccupied outside air rates
must be modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed Case).</span><br>
<br>
<br>
Thomas Serra<br>
Project Manager<br>
EMO Energy Solutions, LLC<br>
3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 450<br>
Falls Church, VA 22042<br>
voice 703-205-0445 ex-113<br>
fax 703-205-0449</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre>____________________________________________________________<br>
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business<br>
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses</pre></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<p align="left"><font size="2"><font face="Tahoma"><font color="#0000ff">
</font></font></font></p><hr>
<font color="#0000ff"><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial">The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of GHT Limited. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to </font><a href="mailto:ght@ghtltd.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial">ght@ghtltd.com</font></a><font face="Arial">, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Thank you.</font></font></font>
</blockquote></div><br>