Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "LEED Interpretation" "10047" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "For a fine art museum pursuing EAp2, is it acceptable to use the systems and recommendations described in the ASHRAE HVAC Applications 2007 Handbook as the baseline in cases where Appendix G does not adequately describe a typical preservation area?" " The outlined approach is acceptable. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10048" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "In consideration of EAp2, are plug-in type occupancy sensors acceptable to control task lights?" "The proposed task lighting controls are acceptable. Although ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Section 9.4.1.1 does not list an exemption for task lighting, the context of this section implies that the requirement applies only to general lighting. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10049" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Can the project team use the ASHRAE 90.1 2007 energy model as the baseline for both EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1 in LEED v2.2?" "If the project team is following the point thresholds from LEED v2.2 the direction outlined in the credit interpretation request is acceptable. Note: this ruling does not apply to Core and Shell projects. Note: this ruling does not apply to Core and Shell projects. Applicable internationally." "10163" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10131" "2011-11-01" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Retail - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "As 90.1-2007 is essentially a compilation of addenda, we assume it may be treated in the way outlined in the footnote to EA prerequisite 2, ""Project teams wishing to use ASHRAE approved addenda for the purposes of this credit may do so at their discretion. Addenda must be applied consistently across all LEED credits."" However, between 2004 and 2007 Appendix G was modified in some ways without addenda being published or approved, and these modifications were made official only by inclusion in the 2007 version. We further assume that we can use these modifications, as long as we use ALL the modifications in the 2007 Appendix G and referenced sections of 90.1, similar to the guidance on addenda noted above. Is this correct?" "For LEED v2.x Rating Systems, where ASHRAE 90.1-2004 is the referenced standard, it is acceptable to use ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G in place of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G if the energy simulation follows the language of 2007 Appendix G in its entirety, though the project must only meet the prescriptive requirements listed in 2004. Projects that want to use 90.1-2007 in its entirety may do so as well. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10132" "2011-11-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Healthcare, Hospitality - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Retail - Commercial Interiors" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Table G3.1.1A lists two possible categories for the building heating source: \n(1) Fossil fuel, fossil/electric hybrid, & purchased heat; \n(2) Electric and other. \n\nIn cases where the proposed building design includes both a natural gas heating source and an electric heating source, when should the heat source in Table G3.1.1A be identified as ""Fossil/Electric Hybrid"" versus ""Electric""?" "Clarification is requested regarding when a building heat source in Table G3.1.1A should be identified as ""Fossil/Electric Hybrid"" versus ""Electric"". \n\nThe ASHRAE 90.1-2007 User\'s Manual states that a fossil/electric hybrid source ""refers to a system with any combination of fossil and electric heat, and the baseline system for this is a fossil fuel system"". Therefore, the heating source for the proposed building would be considered ""Fossil Fuel"" or ""Fossil/Electric Hybrid"" if the building uses any fossil fuel source for space heating (including backup heating or preheating), and the baseline building heat source would be fossil fuel.\n\nException: ASHRAE 90.1 Section G3.1.1 Exception (a) stipulates additional system type(s) for non-predominant conditions (i.e. residential/non-residential or heating source) if those conditions apply to more than 20,000 square feet of conditioned floor area. \n\nEXAMPLES OF BASELINE HEATING SOURCE DETERMINATION: \n\nThe Baseline heat source from Table G3.1.1A for the following Proposed Case system types would be fossil fuel since the proposed system design includes a combination of fossil and electric heat:\n \n1. Variable air volume system with gas furnace preheat and electric reheat\n2. Packaged terminal heat pumps with outside air tempered by fossil fuel furnace\n3. Water source heat pumps with fossil fuel boiler\n4. Ground source heat pumps with backup fossil fuel boiler\n5. 90,000 square feet is conditioned by a variable air volume system with electric reheat, and 10,000 square feet is conditioned with fossil fuel furnaces\n\nThe following buildings would be modeled with an additional system type with a different Baseline heating source in accordance with Section G3.1.1 Exception (a):\n\n1. 90,000 square feet is conditioned by a variable air volume system with electric reheat, and 20,000 square feet is conditioned with Packaged DX systems with fossil fuel furnaces. In this case, the 90,000 square feet of area would be modeled with an electric heat source in the Baseline Case (System Type #6 - Packaged VAV with Electric PFP Boxes), and the 20,000 square feet of area would be modeled with a fossil fuel heat source in the Baseline Case (System Type #3 - Packaged Single Zone AC with fossil fuel furnace).\n2. 50,000 square feet is conditioned by water source heat pumps with a fossil fuel boiler, and 25,000 square feet is conditioned by electric heat pumps. In this case, the 50,000 square feet of area would be modeled with a fossil fuel heat source in the Baseline Case (System Type #5 - Packaged VAV with hot water reheat), and the 25,000 square feet of area would be modeled with an electric heat source in the Baseline Case (System Type #4 - Packaged Single Zone Heat Pump). Applicable internationally.\n\n" "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10157" "2012-04-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - New Construction, Healthcare, Data centers - New Construction, Hospitality - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Neighborhood Development" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We request a ruling regarding building ventilation and its impact on EAp2/EAc1. \n\nThe question is two-fold: \n(1) Will USGBC/GBCI allow credit for a design that increases ventilation effectiveness other than Displacement Ventilation (a noted exception for PDV now exists in ASHRAE 62.1-2010), \n\nand, \n\n(2) will USGBC/GBCI allow credit for reduced ventilation by decoupling the outdoor air from the multi-zone VAV system, which requires increased ventilation rates to ensure the appropriate airflow is reaching all of the zones? \n\nProject Design Information:\nThe project is a multi-story office space undergoing a major renovation. In accordance with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G, the baseline system is System 8. Ventilation is handled by VAV air handling units, thus requiring multi-zone calculations. Due to elevated terminal heating temperature, zone air distribution effectiveness (Ez) is 0.8.\n\nSimilarly, the proposed system will employ a VAV system, but with decoupled constant-volume ventilation, thus foregoing multi-zone calculations and reducing outdoor air. Ventilation is room neutral resulting in an Ez of 1.0.\n\nReferenced Standards/Guidelines/Research:\nEz factors and ventilation rates are determined from ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007 Tables 6-2 and 6-1, respectively.\n\nASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G Section G.3.1.2.8 Design Airflow Rates states:\n\n(D)esign supply airflow rates for the baseline building design shall be based on supply-air-to-room-air temperature difference of 20°F\n\n This exceeds the 15°F limit from Table 6-2. ASHRAE 62.1-2007 User’s Manual (page 6-27) instructs to use the worst case factor, which is the heating Ez of 0.8.\n\n ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G Section G.3.1.2.5 Ventilation states:\n\n (V)ventilation rates shall be the same for the proposed and baseline building designs.\n\n Reviewing the User’s Manual for this section adds:\n\n (V)ventilation can be a major contributor to building energy consumption, but it is not considered an opportunity for energy savings... (V)ventilation is energy neutral as far as tradeoffs are concerned.\n\n Spare a recent exemption for using PDV to reduce outdoor air rates via an allowable manipulation of Ez, no other exemptions exist. Yet, ASHRAE research recognizes the advantages of decoupling ventilation in its ability to reduce ventilation volume and therefore energy costs. From Jeong, J.W., et. al, ASHRAE Transactions 2003, Volume 109, Part 2:\n\n “All-air [VAV] systems are widely used in many types of buildings, [even though] these common systems have several significant deficiencies. …(T)he multiple spaces method must be used to increase the [OA fraction... This increase… may add significantly to energy consumption and operating cost… \n\n “The challenge of conforming to [ASHRAE Standard 62] in an energy efficient manner can be met with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS)… The DOAS provides 100% of the required ventilation air at constant volume” \n\n In addition, EPA’s Technical Report PNNL-18774 (Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Medium Office Buildings) recognized DOAS as a primary energy savings strategy using the previous research by ASHRAE noted above as support and justification.\n\n Conclusions:\n It is clear that, as written, the ventilation volumes should be the same in both models. But we respectfully ask the LEED® Reviewer to provide us feedback on whether this makes sense for the current LEED® Rating Systems. It appears the rules are evolving (ex. Displacement Ventilation) as technologies and techniques evolve. And yet full credit for decoupled ventilation systems doesn’t currently exist and therefore may discourage designers and owner from investing in a system that often has higher first cost. We recommend and endorse this investment because of the excellent returns both in terms of dollars saved and carbon emissions reduced. We ask for your ruling to create an exception that allows credit for increased ventilation effectiveness and reduced ventilation rates (compared to multi-zone VAV systems) using a DOAS." "Credit cannot be taken for ventilation effectiveness in systems other than displacement ventilation, such as a dedicated outdoor air unit, using an Ez of 1.0 in the proposed case, with an Ez of 0.8 for the baseline case (VAV system).\n\nAddendum bj to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 states that the Baseline Case ventilation airflow rates can be calculated using an Ez value of 1.0 only if the Proposed Case Ez value is greater than 1.0. The project team may not take credit unless the Proposed Case Ez value is greater than 1.0, because 90.1 does not set a Baseline Case standard for that scenario. Equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1 may be used." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10159" "2012-04-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - New Construction, Healthcare, Data centers - New Construction, Hospitality - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Neighborhood Development" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The project consists of a consumer products manufacturing facility.The energy intensive manufacturing process exceeds an estimated 90% of the facility\'s total energy load. The Project Client has developed a new manufacturing process which consumes approximately 15% less energy per produced than the previous generation process.The new proprietary process has recently been installed at a similar facility and energy reduction has been demonstrated. Since industrial energy for manufacturing is not covered by ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and the building cannot be accurately modeled using the Appendix G method, project team is seeking to establish and obtain approval of an alternative compliance path.\n\nFollowing the Appendix G procedure would be very challenging because there are so many interacting process and non-process systems. Artificially segregating the systems in the model would not reflect energy consumption patterns accurately. Focusing on non-process components that represent less than 10% of the total energy consumption would not demonstrate the majority of the facility\'s energy savings. Manufacturing process improvements targeted at the other 90% of energy usage have a much greater impact on the entire facility\'s energy consumption. Instead of creating an energy model, baseline and proposed energy consumption will be compared by utilizing an Energy Consumption Index (ECI), which is recognized by the Association of Energy Engineers as an accepted methodology for calculating energy consumption in a manufacturing facility. The Project Client has tabulated historical overall site energy data and production at an existing facility which uses only the previous generation manufacturing platform and is also tabulating data from a site with new generation equipment. The energy data from both of these plants is not sub-metered between process and building loads because there is little economic benefit to meter the small building-only loads. An alternative compliance path will be established using the overall site ECI. Please verify that the following method may be used for determining the entire facility\'s energy cost savings.\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE PATH:\n1. Baseline Building:\nThe existing baseline site" "Using the Energy Consumption Index instead of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G to determine the annual cost savings of the building is not acceptable. The manufacturing process(es) should be calculated using the Exceptional Calculation methodology. A narrative should describe all Baseline and Proposed case assumptions included for this measure, and the calculation methodology used to determine the project savings. The narrative and energy savings should be reported separately from efficiency measures in the template Section 1.7. Additionally, documentation should be provided to verify that the manufacturing process is not standard practice for a similar newly constructed facility by including a recently published document, a utility incentive program that incentivizes the new process, or by documenting the systems used to perform the same function in other newly constructed facilities. While it is acceptable to use monitored data from a similar facility (constructed within the last five years) to document these exceptional calculation savings using a per product or per pound metric, sufficient information must be provided to document the nature of the efficiency improvements made, and to confirm that the data has been normalized appropriately. Specific product names are not required, and the specific details of the manufacturing process are not required; however, the description of the efficiency improvements to the manufacturing process must be adequate to allow the reviewer to confirm that improvements in energy consumption are tied to improved equipment or controls efficiency, and are not associated with decreases in building square footage, differing project locations, local climate data, quantity of shifts operating per day, etc. Any process energy differences related to local climate or weather (such as refrigeration energy, boiler energy, etc.) should be accounted for in the data normalization process, and the method used for normalizing must be clearly indicated. Ensure the same utility rate is used for the proposed case, baseline case, and exceptional calculation. Additionally, all mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 must be met.""" "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10163" "2012-04-01" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Can the project team use the ASHRAE 90.1 2007 energy model as the baseline for both EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1 in LEED v2.2?" "If the project team is following the point thresholds from LEED v2.2 the direction outlined in the credit interpretation request is acceptable. Equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1 may be used." "10049" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10218" "2012-07-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Healthcare, Data centers - New Construction, Hospitality - New Construction, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Neighborhood Development" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "This LEED Interpretation pertains to the requirement to limit voltage drop for Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 for Minimum Energy Performance. The current limit is posing a significant hardship to tall buildings relative to satisfying the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 (also applicable in 90.1-2010), referenced in the prerequisite.\n\n Specifically, the requirement in Standard 90.1 to limit voltage drop to not greater that 2% for electrical feeders and 3% for branch circuits (section 8.4.1) has proven to be problematic for large projects which often contain feeders of extended length. By comparison, the National Electric Code does not explicitly regulate voltage drop, but suggests model Code language that limits either electrical feeder or branch circuit voltage drop to 3%, with the combined voltage drop of both feeders and branch circuits when added together not to exceed 5%.\n\n This may appear to be a minor difference, However, when applied to long copper electrical feeders which are present in tall buildings, this absolute constraint from Standard 90.1 on the feeder voltage drop (of 2%) results in a significant increase in the required quantity of copper conductors and associated conduit.\n\n As an example of a higher density regions attempting to resolve this issue, the New York City Electrical Code has adopted the National Electric Code model language as mandatory for all buildings and also included an exception for residential occupancies within buildings to limit electrical feeder voltage drop to 4%, and the combined voltage drop of both feeders and branch circuits to not more than 5%. \n\n This change is in recognition of the inherently short branch circuit lengths in typical NYC apartments, and is based on measured testing results which indicate that voltage drop is often negligible due to the conservative feeder and circuit sizing requirements mandated by other aspects of the Code. Thus, for residential buildings the allowable voltage drop of 4% is twice the allowable voltage drop of 2% as required in 90.1. Depending upon the length and capacity of a particular feeder, this difference can equate to a 3X variance in the required quantity of copper conductors and conduit, with a significant associated cost premium.\n\n The magnitude of the cost premium to satisfy the 90.1 criteria in tall buildings, as compared with New York City Code requirements, can be equal to the total of all of the other cost premiums (hard and soft) associated with achieving LEED certification (at the Silver or Gold level) for a medium to large project in New York City. \n\n In order to resolve this issue, we are proposing an alternate compliance path that we believe would meet the intent of the prerequisite, while at the same time preventing cost prohibitive use of significant amounts of additional copper.\n\n Voltage drop is literally the loss of electrical energy (converted to heat) within a building, therefore regulating voltage drop is no different than regulating the energy efficiency of any electricity consuming device in a building (such as light fixtures or HVAC motors).\n\n Several approaches could be implemented within the LEED rating system to address this disproportionate prescriptive requirement of Standard 90.1. A simple and straight forward approach would be to allow buildings utilizing Appendix G energy modeling as the LEED energy compliance path to include voltage drop as a regulated parameter within both the Energy Cost Budget and Design Energy Cost models. Under this approach, the 90.1 criteria (2% for feeders and 3% for branch circuits) would included in the Energy Cost Budget model, but the Design Energy Cost model would be allowed to include the actual voltage drop that will be implemented in the project design.\n\n This approach would achieve the direct intent of the voltage drop requirement of Standard 90.1 in regulating the energy efficiency of power distribution systems, but through the inherent trade-off methodology of Appendix G would allow projects the flexibility to eliminate a disproportionate cost premium that is otherwise incurred by a prescriptive requirement. " "The proposed alternative compliance path for meeting the mandatory requirement of ASHRAE 90.1-2007/2010 Section 8.4, Voltage Drop Limitation, allowing voltage drop as a regulated parameter within the energy models, is not acceptable; however, a simplified alternative compliance path can be approved. As noted in the Formal Inquiry, code requirements and guidelines allow flexibility in meeting voltage drop guidance in feeders and branches as long as the overall voltage drop from service entrance to the worst-case connection is within limits. For the purposes of this prerequisite, the mandatory provision of ASHRAE 90.1-2007/2010 Section 8.4 will be met as long as the total voltage drop does not exceed 5%. Internationally applicable." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10237" "2012-10-01" "New Construction, Data centers - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "This CIR is requesting approval of a proposed Exception Calculation Methodology (ECM) for energy savings in process-dominated manufacturing facility.\nThe project consists of a consumer products manufacturing facility. The energy required for the manufacturing process exceeds an estimated 90% of the facility\'s total energy load, and includes both electricity and natural gas. \nThe Project Client has made several energy savings improvements to the manufacturing process above and beyond standard practice for this industry. As a result of these changes, the new process consumes approximately 15% less energy per produced unit than the industry standard approach. Due to the building\'s high percentage of process loads, these new improvements will significantly reduce the project building\'s overall energy consumption. In addition to this, the Project Client will install efficient process steam boilers and an improved process chilled water system to achieve additional energy savings for both process and facilities loads.\nSince the industrial energy use associated with specific manufacturing processes are not covered by ASHRAE 90.1-2007, an alternative compliance path must be established.\nThe Exceptional Calculation Methodology (ECM) will be used to demonstrate process energy savings. Please verify that the following ECM path may be used for the building process loads.\n1. Energy Baseline Model - Manufacturing Process:\na. Process Steam: The baseline boiler efficiency is established utilizing Table 6.8.1F from ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Project Client has established the boiler capacity as >2,500,000 btu/hour and type as natural gas forced draft. Per Table 6.8.1F the baseline boiler efficiency will be 79%.\nb. Process Chilled Water: The baseline chiller efficiency is established utilizing Table 6.8.1C from ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Project Client has established the chiller capacity as >300 tons and type as water cooled centrifugal. Per Table 6.8.1C the baseline chiller efficiency will be 6.40 IPLV.\nc. Process Pumps: The baseline uses modulating valves on constant speed pumping systems to control flow for several processes. Using this method of adjusting flow for these types of systems is the industry standard. \nd. Vacuum Pumps: The baseline for process vacuum pumps is conventional liquid ring vacuum pumps. This is the industry standard method in this type of manufacturing facility.\ne. Drying System: The baseline uses air handling fans with variable inlet vane control for hot air control. This is the industry standard method for this process at manufacturing facilities of this type.\n2. Proposed Design Model - Manufacturing Process:\na. Process Steam: The proposed design boiler efficiency, including stack economizers, is 85%. Project Client can obtain from the boiler and economizer manufacturers a detailed efficiency analysis report to demonstrate the boiler efficiency. \nb. Process Chilled Water: The proposed design chiller efficiency is 6.69 IPLV. Additionally, the intent is to take credit for the energy savings from recovery of chiller condenser heat for use in the manufacturing process. Project Client has chiller manufacturer cut sheet data to support chiller efficiency and condenser heat recovery. \nc. Process Pumps: The proposed design pumps use variable frequency drives to control flow. Project Client has a comprehensive list of pump parameters, along with energy savings calculation. \nd. Vacuum Pumps: The proposed design uses an innovative system that uses 33% less electricity than the industry standard baseline. Since the technology is proprietary, Project Client will submit a brief description of the source of energy savings with supporting calculations, but no detailed cut sheets will be included. \ne. Drying System: The proposed design consists of a proprietary drying system that uses 60% less energy than the industry standard baseline. Project Client will submit a brief description of the source of energy savings with supporting calculations, but no detailed cut sheets will be included since the technology is proprietary. \nThe following information will be submitted for each ECM under EA p2:\n1. Detailed narrative establishing the baseline technologies, through either ASHRAE 90.1-2007 or industry standard practice\n2. Detailed narratives and cut sheets describing non-proprietary equipment (items a, b, c)\n3. Brief description of source of energy savings for proprietary technologies (items d, e)\n4. Annual energy savings (Btu/year) and energy cost savings ($/year) calculations" "The project team is inquiring about documenting improvements in a process-energy-intensive manufacturing plant. Generally, equipment covered by ASHRAE 90.1 requirements can be modeled according to ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G requirements regardless of whether it serves standard building loads, process loads, or a combination of both. If the equipment is either being used in a manner that is incompatible with ASHRAE 90.1 requirements or is equipment not regulated by ASHRAE 90.1, project teams should compare the proposed design to the industry standard by documenting three facilities built within the last five years that have constant speed pump controls, by referencing current utility incentive programs for new construction that incentivize variable speed pumps serving this type of equipment, or by providing published or monitoring studies justifying that this is indeed standard practice. All process energy savings must still be documented using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology (ECM) for review.\nThe ruling regarding the proposed methodology for the baseline and proposed case proposals for each process efficiency measure using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology (ECM) is documented below: \na. Process Steam: Modeling baseline boilers as meeting the efficiencies listed in ASHRAE 90.1 Table 6.8.1F is acceptable. \nb. Process Chillers: Modeling baseline chillers as meeting the efficiencies listed in ASHRAE 90.1 Table 6.8.1C is acceptable. Chilled water and condenser water parameters must be modeled identically in the baseline and design models, or documentation of industry standard practice must be provided in accordance with the above. \nc. Process pumps: Modeling baseline pumps as meeting the minimum prescriptive requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 is acceptable. Pumps operating differently than those used for building HVAC systems must provide documentation of industry standard practice in accordance with the above. \nd. Vacuum pumps: Vacuum pumps are not covered by ASHRAE 90.1 and must be modeled identically in the baseline and design model. Alternatively, provide documentation of industry standard practice in accordance with the above. \ne. Drying System: Drying systems are not covered by ASHRAE 90.1 and must be modeled identically in the baseline and design model. For components of the drying system that are regulated by ASHRAE 90.1 (such as fans) modeling these components according to the ASHRAE 90.1 minimum requirements in the baseline is acceptable. Alternatively, provide documentation of industry standard practice in accordance with the above. \nNote: In all cases, for proprietary equipment used to claim energy savings documentation provided must show sufficient information to allow reviewers to independently confirm the savings claimed has been calculated correctly." "10291" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10239" "2012-10-01" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Healthcare" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Many projects in Europe are connected to highly efficient district energy systems. However, the EAp2/EAc1 Option 2 guidance provided in the ""Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction"" (DESv2) document is not well-suited for the complex interconnected district energy systems with multiple fuel sources that are common in Europe. Many European countries already make use of the Primary Energy Factor (PEF) as a means of evaluating district energy performance and building energy performance. Is there an alternative compliance path available to document EAp2/EAc1 credit for the district energy system using the Primary Energy Factor in lieu of the DESv2 Option 2 compliance path?" "An alternative EAp2/EAc1 compliance path is available to document the energy performance for complex interconnected district energy systems in Europe using the Primary Energy Factor and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these systems. The Sweden Green Building Council developed an approved method, ""Treatment of European District Energy Systems in LEED"" (available November 1, 2012), which may be used in lieu of EAp2 Option 2 of the ""Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction"" guidance. This compliance path is currently available for projects located in Europe only. \n \nNote: The ""Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction"" (DESv2) is Optional Guidance for LEED 2009 projects. However, project teams that use the guidance must apply all relevant portions of the guidance. The alternative compliance path outlined in the ""Treatment of European District Energy Systems in LEED"" may only be used to replace Option 2 of the EAp2/EAc1 Energy Modeling Path defined in the DES v2 guidance. Project teams that opt to use the ""Treatment of European District Energy Systems in LEED"" method must comply with all other applicable requirements of the DES v2 guidance such as those defined for EA Credit 3, EA Credit 4, EA Credit 5, etc.\n \nApplicable Internationally; only for projects located in the Europe region. " "10241, 10243" "Treatment of Scandinavian District Energy Systems in LEED v1 2012" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1522" "2006-12-02" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "There are two main components to this CIR with regards to the prerequisite (envelope / simplified approach with HVAC) detailed as follows: Maximum U-factor and SGHF requirements for the building envelope The majority of the building is naturally ventilated and only the three following areas are being air conditioned:- a) Room 1: Room 1 is air conditioned via an air cooled split package unit system consisting of an outdoor condensing/compressor unit coupled to an indoor air handling unit with a direct expansion cooling coil. The cooled air is distributed to the room via a network of insulated galvanized steel ductwork with ceiling mounted diffusers. b) Room 2: Room 2 is air conditioned via an air cooled variable refrigerant package unit system consisting of an outdoor inverter condensing/compressor unit coupled to a few indoor concealed ducted fan coil units. The cooled air is distributed to the room via a network of insulated galvanized steel ductwork with ceiling mounted diffusers. c) Area 3: The office and meeting rooms are air conditioned via an air cooled variable refrigerant package unit system consisting of an outdoor inverter condensing/compressor unit coupled to a few indoor concealed ducted fan coil units. The cooled air is distributed to the room via a network of insulated galvanized steel ductwork with ceiling mounted diffusers. With regards to the maximum U-factor and SGHF requirements on the building envelope it is suggested we apply only to parts of the envelope separating the air conditioned space with the outdoor space. We also understand there are some requirements for the envelope elements that are adjacent to the \'unconditioned space\' in the Semi-heated column of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section 5.5.2 and figure 5-5 that we will need to be in compliance with. Simplified Approach Option for HVAC System Instead of complying with the mandatory provision of Section 6.4 of ASHRAE Std 90.1 - 2004, we propose the above mentioned approach based on Section 6.3 of the same standard. The standard allows building with gross floor area less than 2,300 m2 to follow this approach. Although the proposed building gross floor area is approximately 8,300 m2, the air conditioned area in this building is only approximately 1,230 m2. In addition, the proposed air conditioning system as described in Issue 1 (a), (b) and (c) is fairly simple system. Will this suggested building envelope and simplified HVAC System approach be acceptable?" "To demonstrate compliance with ASHRAE 90.1-2004 using the prescriptive or trade-off approach, only those areas that are heated or cooled per section 2.2.(a) of the standard must comply with the envelope requirements. As for compliance with the HVAC section 6, the gross floor area of your project is greater than the 25,000 ft2 maximum required by section 6.3.1(b). Gross floor area represents the entire building floor area, not just the gross conditioned floor area. The HVAC systems must comply with the mandatory requirements in section 6.4. Note that the building systems must also meet the requirements of section 7, 8 and 9." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1568" "2006-09-13" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The following are the extracts from ASHRAE 90.1 (Section 5.4.3) for the Air Leakage requirements:- 5.4.3.2 Fenestration and Doors. Air leakage for fenestration and doors shall be determined in accordance with NFRC 400. Air leakage shall be determined by a laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized accreditation organization, such as the National Fenestration Rating Council, and shall be labeled and certified by the manufacturer. Air leakage shall not exceed 5.0 L/sm2 for glazed swinging entrance doors and for revolving doors and 2.0 L/sm2 for all other products. Exceptions to 5.4.3.2: (a) Field-fabricated fenestration and doors. (b) For garage doors, air leakage determined by test at standard test conditions in accordance with ANSI/ DASMA 105 shall be an acceptable alternate for compliance with air leakage requirements. Our project is in Thailand, all the fenestration and doors are field fabricated, with the exception of a two doors at a special Manufacturing Process Room and the Mezzanine Office - this can be as indicated via a floorplan, if necessary. We would like to seek exceptions for compliance to NFRC 400 air leakage test for these two doors based on the following reasons:- 1. There is no accredited laboratory in Thailand that can readily certify the NFRC 400 requirements. To set up the test apparatus specifically for the two doors for this project only will not be cost effective. 2. The air conditioned areas enclosed by these doors are relatively small in comparison to the total factory area which is mainly naturally ventilated. 3. As the doors will be manufactured off-site, the quality and air leakage performance should be able to match that of the field-fabricated type as allowed under exception (a), will this be acceptable?" "The project is seeking an exemption for NFRC 400 air leakage testing for a small percentage of the doors installed in the project. Their reasons for requesting exemption are that an accredited laboratory that can provide certification is not available, that the doors are custom manufactured doors, and therefore more closely resemble field-fabricated doors which are exempted from the requirement, and that the doors adjoin to only a small percentage of the total air-conditioned area for the project. The reasons provided for exempting the doors from the testing requirement are acceptable. The project submittal should provide information justifying why NFRC 400 air leakage testing is not feasible for the doors in question. In order for a project to exempt manufactured doors from the requirements, the following criteria must be met: 1. The country where the doors are manufactured and installed does not have an accredited laboratory for certifying the NFRC 400 requirements. 2. The manufactured doors exempted open directly to spaces less than 3,000 square feet of building area. 3. At least 85% of the doors for the project meet the Door air leakage labeling requirements. Applicable Internationally; Thailand." "None" "None" "X" "Thailand" "LEED Interpretation" "1629" "2006-12-02" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We are seeking a variance for the parking garage HVAC system. Our project is located in Teton Village, Wyoming. Teton Village receives an average snowfall of 185 inches/year. As snowy cars use the garage during the winter, we\'re concerned snow and ice will accumulate in the garage causing a life safety issue. We feel a Snow/Ice melt system is necessary for this space. The following are extracts from ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE Application- ASHRAE HVAC Prescriptive Requirement ""Radiant heaters complying with 6.5.8.1 are used to heat unenclosed space"". ASHRAE 6.5.8.1 states ""Radiant heating shall be used when heating is required for unenclosed spaces"". ASHRAE 90.1-2004 states that a Radiant Heating System shall transfer heat primarily (greater than 50%) by infrared radiation. ASHRAE 6.4.3.7 states that Snow/ Ice Melting systems shall include automatic controls capable of shutting off the systems when the pavement temperature is above 50" "The floor radiant system and associated controls you are proposing is acceptable as a snow melt system for the garage as an unenclosed space under ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Radiant heat systems emit low-temperature infrared radiation, whether they operate at 80 F or 300 F. The ASHRAE Application Guide is referring to a specific technology, infrared radiators, and not necessarily requiring their use as radiant heaters. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1644" "2007-01-02" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Our project is one of three major healthcare projects: the Orthopedic Ambulatory Building (OAB), Atrium extension, and garage/central plant building. The central plant will be located in the basements of the garage building, providing chilled water and steam for all three buildings and part of the existing facility, the Kellogg Building. The central plant will include phased chiller and boiler installations. As requested by the client, the central plant has to provide N+1 capacity for redundancy at each phase. See Chart 1 and Chart 2 below: Chart 1: Chillers Phasing Plan Phase Date Building___Phase Load__Tot. Loads__Instl. Capacity _______________________(Ton)_______(Ton)_____(700 Ton and _______________________________________________1400 Ton chiller) A____8/1/2008 OAB_________732_______732________Two 700 Ton B____6/1/2011 Atrium Ext.__2333_____3065________5600 C____10/1/2013 Atrium_____1800______5300________5600 C____10/1/2013 Kellogg____600_______5905________7000 Chart 2: Boilers Phasing Plan: Phase Date Building____Phase Load__Tot. Loads__Instl. Capacity _______________________(Lbs/Hr)______(BHP)_____(412 BHP and _______________________________________________712 BHP chiller) A____8/1/2008 OAB___________6860_____205_______Two 412 BHP B____6/1/2011 Atrium Ext._____33297____120_______2268 C____10/1/2013 Atrium________27490____2021______2900 C____10/1/2013 Kellogg/other__51820____3570______5155 The Atrium Extension, Phase B, will be the building seeking LEED certification. It is a new 1,120,000 square foot hospital addition consisting of two basement levels for logistics and ancillary services, five floors of diagnostic and treatment functions, one lab floor, and five inpatient bed floors. The Atrium Extension Building will receive primary chilled water (38F) and high pressure steam (140PSI) from the central plant, which will be three blocks away. The Atrium Extension Building will only be using one quarter of the total central plant capacity. When we simulate the building energy performance for Atrium Extension building, should we include the central plant in the models? If so, how much of the total capacity do we include? Alternatively, could we just use ""purchased chilled water and steam"" for both the baseline and proposed design models? The central plant is producing 38F of chilled water for the entire facility. This operation is not covered in the nonstandard operation, stated in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 6.4.1.2 C). Should we set up our baseline model based on 44F chilled water and 3 GPM/Ton of condensing water? Or should we use the 40F with 2 GPM/Ton condensing water, which is close to the proposed design condition?" "The project team is requesting clarification regarding the modeling of separate campus buildings served by a campus central plant. Based on the information provided, the central plant appears to be a new central plant, which will add chillers and boilers as additional phases of the project are completed. The following clarifications are requested regarding the central plant: [1] Should the energy models reflect the design of the central plant, or be modeled using purchased chilled water and steam? If the central plant is modeled, how should the capacities of the central plant be modeled? [2] What circulation loop temperatures and condenser water flows should be used in the base case? [1] It should be noted that if the project is pursuing credit under EAc1, the project must be modeled using ASHRAE 90.1 2004 Appendix G requirements. Section G3.1.3.7 states that for systems 7 and 8, electric chillers shall be modeled in the baseline building regardless of the cooling energy source. However, if the project is only seeking compliance with EAp2, the budget building may be modeled with purchased chilled water when the design energy case is also modeled with purchased chilled water. The USGBC is in the process of preparing a document describing the modeling protocol for individual buildings serviced by a central plant with Combined Heat & Power. If the project would like to reflect energy savings achieved from the central plant, they may apply the modeling methodologies described in this document (which will be available some time after January 2007). If the project is completing documentation prior to the release of this document, then the Proposed design for the central plant should be modeled using purchased energy rates, and the Baseline design should be modeled using ASHRAE modeling protocol. If purchased energy rates are used, documentation should be provided justifying how these rates were determined. [2] For the Baseline (or budget) building, chilled water circulation loop temperature must be modeled in accordance with Note 5 of Table 11.3.2A (if using the Energy Cost Budget Method to show minimum compliance) or G3.1.3.8 (if using the Performance Rating Method to show credit). Condenser water temperature rise must be modeled using Note 5 of Table 11.3.2A (if using the ECB method) or G1.3.11 (if using the Performance Rating Method)." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1667" "2007-02-07" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "This project is located in Portland, Oregon. The intent of EAp2 is to establish a minimum level of efficiency for the proposed building and system, and we confidently believe we have met and exceeded the intent of the point, but have some limitations with regard to the ASHRAE standards for baseline energy use. We are constructing four greenhouses and an office room, all connected by a corridor, for a total floor area is 4385 sq. ft. Since the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 does not apply to buildings or portions of buildings that use energy primarily for commercial or industrial processes, our project is proposing the use of a calculated baseline for energy use specific to greenhouses in order to maintain the integrity of the point while still including the greenhouse area in the certification process. The baseline we are proposing is the calculated energy use of a single pane glass greenhouse structure of the same size and dimensions with a U-value of 1.13. This baseline was chosen because single-pane greenhouses are the base model and most frequently purchased from the greenhouse manufacturer supplying our greenhouses. This project\'s greenhouses will use double wall polycarbonate with a U value of 0.65 or better. This baseline has been accepted for use by the State of Oregon Department of Energy\'s strict energy performance guidelines for the State Energy-Efficient Design (SEED) Regulation. The Oregon SEED rule requires that state buildings exceed local energy codes by 20% or more. The double-wall polycarbonate greenhouses will exceed this new, de-facto state baseline by 30%. Is our proposed baseline calculation for the greenhouses acceptable for meeting this prerequisite for greenhouses in lieu of ASHRAE 90.1? What are the submission requirements for this new greenhouses baseline and for the other energy efficiency component requirements of the standard?" "The project is requesting confirmation on their proposed alternative for determining the baseline case for a greenhouse. The proposed methodology is acceptable for meeting the prerequisite. However, this proposed baseline is not acceptable for EAc1, when calculating a percentage improvement in the building performance. Please note that USGBC has recently deemed the Oregon Energy Code 2005 equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for LEED purposes (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2256). If this code is more appropriate, the project team may use it. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1694" "2007-03-15" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "California Title-24 requirements indicate that space conditioning controls must be provided to prevent reheating of air that has been mechanically cooled, recooling of air that has been previously heated, or simultaneous heating and cooling. The code specifically exempts zones that have special pressurization relationships or cross contamination control needs. However, the performance methodology defined in the Alternative Calculation Manual does not indicate how systems serving these zones should be treated in a performance energy model. Our project is a hospital where all zones have special pressurization relationships and cross contamination control needs. We are seeking clarification regarding the modeling protocol for the systems serving these zones. PG&E released a document entitled ""2003 Savings by Design Healthcare Modeling Procedures"" to define a methodology for modeling the baseline hospital HVAC and lighting systems, for cases where the methodology is not explicitly defined within the Title-24 2001 standards. Savings by Design is a California incentive program for energy efficiency offered by the major California utilities statewide, and modeling methodologies applied by the program are recognized by the California Public Utilities Commission as being consistent with Title-24 energy efficiency requirements. The ""2003 Savings by Design Healthcare Modeling Procedures"" state: If the standard design practice for the type of system being modeled is a constant air volume system, then the baseline will be a CAV system."" Can we apply this HVAC modeling protocol defined in these 2003 Savings by Design Healthcare modeling procedures to our project? Also, can we apply the lighting requirements defined in the Savings by Design Healthcare Modeling procedures in spaces that are excluded from the Title-24 lighting power density requirements?" "Per an NCv2.1 EAc1.1 CIR Ruling dated 10/21/2004, the Savings by Design approach is not acceptable under this prerequisite because there is insufficient information on the standard assumptions for exempt occupancies. Acceptable options include Title 24, the LEED Energy Modeling Protocol based on ASHRAE 90.1-1999, or choose to demonstrate energy cost savings using LEED NC-2.2 following ASHRAE 90.1-2004, Appendix G." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1708" "2007-03-15" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The intent of this credit is to ""Establish the minimum level of energy efficiency for the proposed building and systems."" The requirements of this credit are as follows: - Comply with the mandatory provisions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. - Comply with the prescriptive requirements or performance requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. Mandatory lighting control provisions for Space Control break down on each space (Section 9.4.1.2.b). We would like to take exception to a particular space: - Covered Concourses: Section 9.4.1.2.b requires that a control device control a maximum of 10,000 square-feet area for a space greater than 10,000 square-feet. The covered concourses are to be controlled by four separate zones according to quadrant on each level. The zone\'s sizes are varied from 9,000 square-feet to 45,000 square-feet. - We ask that each quadrant on each level can be controlled by a single control device. Table 9.6.1 of the Standard lists Lighting Power Densities Using the Space-by-Space Method. We would like to clarify the space type used and the corresponding lighting power density for the following: - Covered Concourses: Table 9.6.1 lists Mall Concourse, which most closely represents the covered concourses of the ballpark, at 1.7 watts per square foot. Light levels for covered concourses are designed to be an average of 7 to 10 foot candles. These spaces are used for circulation, gathering space, and retail. In addition, most of the fixtures are surface mounted at ceiling height (average of 23\'-0"") due to clearance requirements in the covered concourses. - We ask that a lighting power density of 1.7 watts per square foot be accepted. - Dugouts, Bullpens, Batting Tunnels: Table 9.6.1 lists Court Sports Area, which most closely represents the function of these spaces, at 2.3 watts per square foot. Light levels for these areas are designed to be an average of 75 foot candles. - We ask that a lighting power density of 2.3 watts per square foot be accepted. Table 9.4.5 of the Standard lists Lighting Power Densities for Building Exteriors. We would like to clarify the tradable surfaces used and the corresponding lighting power density for the following: - Open Outdoor Concourses: Table 9.4.5 lists Outdoor Sales, which most closely represents the open outdoor concourses of the ballpark, at 0.5 watts per square foot. Light levels for these areas are designed to be an average of 7 to 10 footcandles. These spaces are a continuation of the covered concourse area and are used for circulation, gathering space, and retail. - We ask that a lighting power density of 0.5 watts per square foot be accepted." "The request addresses a number of different lighting issues: 1) ASHRAE 90.1-2004 has mandatory requirements for lighting controls that must be met. It is not acceptable to have a single control for a zone greater than 10,000 sf. 2) The lighting power allowances of 1.7 W/sf proposed for the concourses are acceptable. 3) The lighting power allowances of 2.3 W/sf proposed for the dugouts, bullpens and batting tunnels is acceptable. 4) The lighting power allowances of 0.5 W/sf proposed for the outdoor concourses are acceptable. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1712" "2007-03-23" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Our project is a multiple building high-end condominium-resort project. This question relates to the requirements of lighting as it pertains to ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004. In ASHRAE 90.1-2004, section 9.1.1, exceptions (b) lists that this section does not apply to lighting within living units. However table 9.5.1 Lighting Power Densities Using the Building Area Method lists ""Multi-family"" building area type with a 0.7 W/SF. Please clarify for the purposes of EAp2 and EA credit 1, the applicable interpretation of the Standard. Does the entire building have to meet the 0.7W/SF requirement as an average?" "The applicant is requesting clarification regarding which lighting is included in the allowable lighting power density for high-rise multifamily residential projects. All common areas and support areas including circulation, lounges, lobbies, etc. should be included in the lighting power density calculations. Therefore, when using the Building Area Method, the average lighting power density for common areas and support spaces in a high-rise condominium project should be modeled as 0.7 Watts/sf in the Baseline case; or when using the prescriptive compliance methodology, the average lighting power density for these spaces should not exceed 0.7 Watts/sf. Dwelling units are excluded from the allowable lighting power density. For EA credit 1, the exception listed in Table G3.1.6 states that lighting in multifamily guest rooms which are connected via receptacles and are not shown on the building plans should be modeled identically in the Baseline building and Proposed building simulations, but should be excluded (in post-processing) when calculating the Baseline building performance and Proposed building performance. For EA credit 1, all hard-wired lighting in living units that is shown on the building plans should be modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed building simulations as shown in the plans. This lighting shall be considered process energy. Credit may be taken for an efficient lighting design in the living unit using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology shown below. (1) Assumptions used as a baseline for residential lighting will need to be supported by specific study results if you propose to include residential lighting savings in the energy performance calculations. These studies will need to address both light density AND daily duty cycle. The maximum allowable baseline for such residential lighting is restricted to 2 W/sf. (1) Although residential lighting density is higher than offices, the duty cycle of these lights is much lower than in offices. Some studies suggest figures near 2 hours a day or less for hard-wired residential fixtures. This reduces the significance of residential lighting in the energy model. (2) Baseline lighting assumptions should not include \'portable\' light fixtures, nor should the baseline calculations assume use of hard-wired fixtures in rooms where the studies cited indicate portable lights are the norm. Therefore applying a factor of 2 w/sf to the entire residential floor area, even though only three rooms would be anticipated to have hard-wired fixtures, would be inappropriate. In other words, lighting credit can only be taken in rooms where permanently installed hard-wired lighting fixtures can meet the illumination requirements for the room. (3) In residential units which are heating-load driven, there is an energy offset penalty of approximately 40% (according to numerous Pacific Northwest studies) for reductions to residential lighting load. That is, 4 of every 10 watts saved by reduced lighting loads must be made up for by increased heating energy. This offset must be accounted by your model. (4) Use of residential lighting energy savings to achieve LEED credit represents an exceptional calculation methodology outside of the LEED modeling protocol. As such it will be carefully scrutinized with respect to baseline and performance claims, and clear and concise documentation will be expected. The energy submittal template must account for this measure using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology. [Note that this LEED Interpretation is also available under EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance.]" "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1742" "2007-09-18" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "This CIR has two parts. Please confirm following approach to meet LEED NC 2.2 EA P2 is acceptable for certification purpose. 1. The envelope design has opted to use trade-off method using COM Check program to demonstrated compliance with ASHRAE 90.1 2004. As per CIR ruling 12/5/2005 COMCheck program can be used to prove and submit compliance with ASHRAE 90.1 2004. Please confirm that using this program this is acceptable for LEED NC 2.2 certification. 2. The project includes development of a park which will handed over to the City. The lighting on the park is dictated by the city\'s regulations and might not be within limits required by ASHRAE 90.1 2004. We will submit documentation with the city\'s lighting codes and non-compliance areas. Because the project design and owner have no control in reducing the lighting wattage, we request an exception to the rule. All other grounds and exterior lighting in the project realm is within the specified ASHRAE 90.1 2004 limits." "The project team has requested clarification regarding two issues: (1) whether the trade-off method using the COMcheck program is an acceptable means of documenting compliance with ASHRAE 90.1-2004; (2) whether ASHRAE 90.1 Exterior lighting requirements apply to areas of the site where city regulations mandate lighting that uses more energy than allowed by ASHRAE 90.1. 1. The trade-off method using the COMcheck program is an acceptable means of documenting envelope compliance with ASHRAE 90.1-2004. 2. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section 9.1.1(c) Exception (c) specifically exempts lighting that is designated as required by a health or life safety statute, ordinance, or regulation from the standard. If the park lighting dictated by the city\'s regulations meets the requirements for this exception, then it does not have to comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2004 requirements. However, if the lighting is not specifically exempted by ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and the portion of the park mentioned is part of the overall site boundary for the LEED submittal, then the lighting must comply with the limits required by ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1815" "2007-06-13" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We are in the process of submitting a Laboratory for LEED certification. The building contains a two-story, 6650 square foot Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Laboratory which houses several shielded enclosures. Experiments are performed in and around the shielded enclosures that are very sensitive to electromagnetic interference (EMF). To minimize EMF issues, a two-tiered lighting scheme was developed. Tier 1 consists of thirty-one (31) industrial high bay luminaires, containing 1000 watt incandescent lamps, which are to be operated when experiments are running because they are EMF neutral. Tier 2 consists of thirty (30) industrial high bay luminaires containing 400 watt metal halide lamps (455 watts with ballast) which are to be operated for maintenance and general illumination when experiments are not running for higher efficiency. The space also contains 1200 watts of accent lighting. The lighting power density (LPD) of Tier 1 is 4.7 watts per square foot. The LPD of Tier 2 is 2.1 watts per square foot. Even if we take into account the Exception to 9.2.4 in ASHRAE 90.1-1999: ""if two or more independently operated lighting systems in a space are capable of being controlled to prevent simultaneous user operation, the installed interior power shall be based solely on the lighting system with the highest wattage"", the 4.7 watts per square foot in this space still far exceeds the 1.8 watts per square foot prescribed in the space-by-space method for laboratories. Because of the highly specialized nature of the EMC Laboratory and the fact that incandescent lamps sources had to be deployed, we feel that the LPD requirements stipulated in ASHRAE 90.1-1999 cannot be achieved. Therefore, we are asking to exclude the EMC Laboratory from our lighting power allowance calculations." "The applicant is seeking a waiver to exclude the EMC Laboratory from their lighting power allowance calculations. Based on the narrative, it would be appropriate to consider the lighting systems that are required only during the experiments as a process load. The lighting that is used for maintenance and general illumination and when experiments are not running needs to be accounted for. However, even this LPD is higher than stipulated. Please note that if the project is targeting EAc1, the applicant must include the larger lighting power density on the appropriate schedule to generate accurate equipment sizing scenarios." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1829" "2007-08-13" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The project is a 3,000 square foot 1-story new office building. The requirements of this prerequisite are to comply with the mandatory provisions (sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4, and 10.4) of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 and the prescriptive requirements (sections 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, and 9.5) of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 2004 Section 8.4.1.1 states ""Feeder conductors shall be sized for a maximum voltage drop of 2% at design load."" The exception we would like to take is as follows: We meet all the other requirements of this prerequisite for minimum energy efficiency requirements. Our design is approximately a 2.9% voltage drop, which meets the latest edition of the National Electric Code 215-2(A)(2) FPN#2 which allows between 3-5% voltage drop. The cable size is parallel 500 MCM. To meet the 2% requirement, the cable size would be increased to parallel 750 MCM. This is a significant cost increase to the project without gaining any energy savings. Will the 2.9% voltage drop be acceptable to use?" "The project is requesting a relaxed voltage drop requirement for feeder conductors. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 is the referenced standard for EAp2 for LEED. The purpose of this standard is to provide minimum requirements for the energy-efficient design of buildings except low-rise residential buildings. This Standard is explicit in the requirement as stated in Section 8.4.1.1: ""Feeder conductors shall be sized for a maximum voltage drop of 2% at design load."" The fundamental purpose of the National Electrical Code (Section 90.1(A) and (B)) is to provide for practical safeguarding of persons and property, and contains provisions that are necessary for safety. In keeping with the purpose of the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, its requirements are more stringent than the allowances in the National Electrical Code. Therefore, the project must meet the requirement per Section 8.4.1.1 of the Standard in order to comply with this prerequisite. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1874" "2007-09-10" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The SRA Arlington Consolidation design development phase started in February of 2005. The owner asked that the project be designed per the LEED-CI criteria and an early analysis of the project checklist indicated a possible Silver Certification. The LEED-CI checklist was discussed at our weekly project meetings from February 2005 until May 2005, when our CD\'s were Issued for Bid on 5/13/2005. In February 2005, the current LEED-CI checklist was Version 2, which referenced the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 criteria. We continued to review the LEED-CI criteria, and completed our CD\'s as stated above utilizing the 2001 criteria. Up unitl this time, we anticipated a paper submittal to USGBC. The LEED Online website was introduced at GreenBuild in Atlanta in November 2005, however USGBC wrestled with numerous technical challenges and did not go live until the Spring of 2006. (We know this because we attempted several times to access the website to begin entering our data the early part of 2006.) The project was bid and then sat dormant until the base building progressed to a point when the interiors portion of the work could start, per the lease, in January 2006. Also, in late summer/early fall 2005 there was significant concern on the part of the interiors team that the base building was not hitting critical milestone dates, thus providing the tenant an escape clause included in the lease - effectively cancelling the construction of interiors portion of the project. Due to these delays and uncertainty, the project was not registered with USGBC until 1/26/2006. We are asking for relief or a variance from the USGBC regarding the ASHRAE 90.1 standard, specifically that due to the timing of our design phase and CD\'s (5/13/05) versus the release of LEED-CI Version 2 on 5/25/05 that we be allowed to use ASHRAE 90.1 - 2001 criteria and not ASHRAE 90.1 - 2004. Obviously, without this prerequisite we will not be able to continue completing the submittal for this project." "Projects must adhere to the requirements of the version in effect at the time of the project\'s registration. No exceptions can be made. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2026" "2008-02-04" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The applicant is requesting clarification regarding the modeling of a refrigerated warehouse, where refrigeration will comprise the single largest energy end-use in the project. Specifically, the applicant requests verification that the following compliance path is appropriate for a Refrigerated Warehouse building 1. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lighting requirements will be used 2. Insulation for the Baseline Case Freezers and Loading Dock will be stricter than ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and will comply with ASHRAE Design Essentials, Table 2, p. 50. 3. Refrigeration efficiency measures will be modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed energy models, and then documented using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology. Most of these measures will use the SBD / Case report as a Baseline, while the remainder of the measures will use Customer’s Standard Practice as the Baseline. The refrigeration energy consumption will be modeled using either an 8,760 hour energy simulation program or a detailed spreadsheet analysis that uses 8,760 weather data, or a combination of the two. The general methodology outlined above is appropriate for this building type, since the entire building will be served by a refrigeration system, and almost none of the building will be served by a standard HVAC system. The following additional requirements will apply for the project EAc1 submittal: Both the budget and proposed design for the refrigerated warehouse should be modeled in an hourly building simulation program (like eQUEST-r), and all efficiency measures that can be documented within the simulation program must be documented using that program. For any efficiency measures that cannot specifically be modeled in the building simulation program, the project may use spreadsheet calculations or other industry software. If spreadsheets are used for documenting energy efficiency measures, sufficient information must be provided to verify that the calculations accurately document the hourly energy consumption of the equipment All exceptional calculations must be thoroughly documented in accordance with the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 exceptional calculation method: the major calculation inputs and assumptions must be clearly documented, and sufficient information must be provided to verify that the calculations accurately document the hourly energy consumption of the equipment. No changes may be made to input parameter values specified by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G. For example, occupant sensor lighting controls are allowed a 10% credit per Table G3.2, so no more credit than this may be taken for these controls. Also, no schedule changes can be made to vary the budget from the proposed case unless specifically allowed in Appendix G. Customer’s Standard Practice alone is not sufficient to document the Baseline energy parameters using the exceptional calculation method. The documentation should include sufficient justification to show that the modeled Baseline Case is industry standard practice for new construction of refrigerated warehouses. When referencing a Source (such as the SBD/ Case Report) to document a baseline case parameter or to document the validity of a proposed efficiency measure, please include excerpts of the source to verify that the referenced method is being used." "The applicant is requesting clarification regarding the modeling of a refrigerated warehouse, where refrigeration will comprise the single largest energy end-use in the project. Specifically, the applicant requests verification that the following compliance path is appropriate for a Refrigerated Warehouse building 1. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lighting requirements will be used 2. Insulation for the Baseline Case Freezers and Loading Dock will be stricter than ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and will comply with ASHRAE Design Essentials, Table 2, p. 50. 3. Refrigeration efficiency measures will be modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed energy models, and then documented using the Exceptional Calculation Methodology. Most of these measures will use the SBD / Case report as a Baseline, while the remainder of the measures will use Customer\'s Standard Practice as the Baseline. The refrigeration energy consumption will be modeled using either an 8,760 hour energy simulation program or a detailed spreadsheet analysis that uses 8,760 weather data, or a combination of the two. The general methodology outlined above is appropriate for this building type, since the entire building will be served by a refrigeration system, and almost none of the building will be served by a standard HVAC system. The following additional requirements will apply for the project EAc1 submittal: Both the budget and proposed design for the refrigerated warehouse should be modeled in an hourly building simulation program (like eQUEST-r), and all efficiency measures that can be documented within the simulation program must be documented using that program. For any efficiency measures that cannot specifically be modeled in the building simulation program, the project may use spreadsheet calculations or other industry software. If spreadsheets are used for documenting energy efficiency measures, sufficient information must be provided to verify that the calculations accurately document the hourly energy consumption of the equipment All exceptional calculations must be thoroughly documented in accordance with the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 exceptional calculation method: the major calculation inputs and assumptions must be clearly documented, and sufficient information must be provided to verify that the calculations accurately document the hourly energy consumption of the equipment. No changes may be made to input parameter values specified by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G. For example, occupant sensor lighting controls are allowed a 10% credit per Table G3.2, so no more credit than this may be taken for these controls. Also, no schedule changes can be made to vary the budget from the proposed case unless specifically allowed in Appendix G. Customer\'s Standard Practice alone is not sufficient to document the Baseline energy parameters using the exceptional calculation method. The documentation should include sufficient justification to show that the modeled Baseline Case is industry standard practice for new construction of refrigerated warehouses. When referencing a Source (such as the SBD/ Case Report) to document a baseline case parameter or to document the validity of a proposed efficiency measure, please include excerpts of the source to verify that the referenced method is being used." "2301, 5178, 5342" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2053" "2008-03-13" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We conform to most of the requirements of EA Prerequisite 2 but found that some of them are controlled by or limited by the existing base building provisions by the landlord, which can not be changed or influenced by us as a tenant of the building. Following are the limitations for us in meeting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and thus we ask for waiver of them: Section 5 - Building envelope - The curtain wall was completed and the SHGC slightly exceeds the ASHRAE requirement section 5.5.4 (0.22 vs 0.19). Section 6 - HVAC - The COP of the HV water chiller is 5.5 vs 6.1 as specified in ASHRAE and the COP of the air cool chiller is 2.5 vs 2.8 as specified in ASHRAE. These chillers are provided as base building specifications. Section 9 - Lighting - The lighting power density of the office area in COP has a higher allowable value than ASHRAE. The lighting power density is largely determined by the landlord and the level meet the local Hong Kong standard in which we can not influence the landlord to change it. Section 10 - Other equipment - There are AHU motors in the floor we rent which do not meet the energy efficiency requirement which is provided by the landlord. For Section 9, the Calculated Lighiting Power Density for our sapce is 14.14 W/m2 (vs 12W/m2 in ASHRAE). In the lighting design, we have already considered: - All light fittings are energy efficient lights - T5 c/w electronic ballast, parabolic diffuser, Compact Fluorescent Lamp. - Design Criteria set at 500 Lux at desk top level, which is common criteria for office design in accordance to various reputable Design Institution. - Background colour is mainly Grey/ White which has already supported a comparatively brighter environment. - Existing Lighting Power Density (14.14 W/m2) has already fulfilled the Local Code of Practice requirement for Energy Efficient Building (17 W/m2 for office) At the same time, our space are constrained by the comparatively high ceiling headroom (2.85 m AFFL) as Grade A Commercial Building provision. This unavoidably increases the lighting power density for the same Lux level be achieved. Since the light fittings and layout is basically constrained by the existing building provision, there is limited rooms for significant Lighting Power Density improvement." "The applicant is requesting a waiver from some of the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 that are controlled by or limited by the existing base building provisions of the landlord, which can not be changed or influenced by the applicant as a tenant of the building. The applicant should refer to the section in the LEED-CI 2.0 Reference Guide page 135 titled ""Applying ASHRAE 90.1-2004"" for further guidance. Any and all areas that are not part of the tenant scope and controlled exclusively by the landlord may be exempt from the requirements of the Standard. Please also refer to section 4.2.1.3 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004. However, any items controlled by the tenant and that are covered under sections 5 through 10 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 must comply with the specific requirements of that section. Alternatively, if the applicant cannot demonstrate prescriptive compliance with the Standard, the applicant may use section 11 Energy Cost Budget Method to demonstrate compliance. The applicant must meet all requirements of section 11 to be able to demonstrate compliance. Further guidance on the Energy Cost Budget Method is available in the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 User\'s Manual. For the purposes of the submittal, please clearly list the option used to demonstrate compliance. Compliance forms for individual sections are published by ASHRAE. For both options please provide a detailed narrative clearly defining the tenant\'s scope of work as it pertains to items covered by ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2080" "2008-04-23" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "As 90.1-2007 is essentially a compilation of addenda, we assume it may be treated in the way outlined by the official USGBC memo re:ASHRAE addenda. However, between 2004 and 2007 Appendix G was modified in some ways w/o addenda being published or approved, and these modifications were made official only by inclusion in the 2007 version. We further assume that we can use these modifications, as long as we use ALL the modifications in the 2007 App G and referenced sections of 90.1, similar to the guidance on addenda use previously given in the USGBC memo. Is this correct?" "The applicant is asking whether ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G may be used in place of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G to satisfy the requirements of the EA Minimum Energy Performance prerequisite (Note: if no energy model is submitted under EAc1, the project must comply with the prerequisite using either the Energy Cost Budget Method (Chapter 11) or the Prescriptive Method of compliance, and may not use the Appendix G method). It is acceptable to use ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G in place of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G if the energy simulation follows the language of 2007 Appendix G in its entirety. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2102" "2008-04-25" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We are working on a multi use facility with a full kitchen for restaurant style serving of the employees. There is nothing in the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standard that defines the baseline energy for a restaurant and kitchen equipment. The owner is investing significant funds in highly efficient kitchen equipment and would like to take credit for the energy savings related to the kitchen. How do we define the baseline energy and calculate the ASHRAE savings to be incorporated in our energy calculations?" "The project team is requesting guidance on defining a baseline for restaurant and kitchen equipment as well as instruction on how to take credit for using efficient equipment in the proposed design. The LEED-NCv2.2 Reference Guide states that project teams may follow the Exceptional Calculation Method (ECM) (ASHRAE 90.1-2004 G2.5) to document measures that reduce process loads. Please refer to the Standard for more information on the ECM methodology. The CIR dated 8/07/2007 also offers guidance on ECMs for process loads. An appropriate baseline for restaurant and kitchen equipment may be created using the energy rates for various equipment found in the 2005 ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals, Chapter 30, Table 5 in conjunction with an appropriate equipment schedule. Please comply with the documentation requirements laid out in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 G2.5 for the Exceptional Calculation Method. Another resource for determining the appropriate baseline for restaurant and kitchen equipment is the LEED for Retail Rating Systems. These can be found on the USGBC website. An informed determination can only be provided during LEED certification review if the requirements ASHRAE 90.1 Section G2.5 guidance are satisfied (i.e., provide theoretical and empirical information verifying accuracy). Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2108" "2008-05-27" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Energy & Atmosphere, Prerequisite 2.0 Minimum Energy Performance. More specifically, we need an interpretation of 2004 Ashrae 90.1 Standard Section 9.6.1 on whether or not we are allowed to trade interior lighting power allowances between spaces in different buildings when the buildings are on the same tract of land and operated by the same owner. Our interpretation of the 2004 Ashrae 90.1 Standard Section 9.6.1 is that we can trade interior lighting power allowances between spaces in different buildings when using the Space-by-Space Method of Calculating Interior Lighting Power Allowance for this project. This interpretation arises from the fact that we have multiple buildings on the same tract of land that will be operated by the same entity, the Federal Government. If we can make this interpretation, we can meet the Standard. If not, some buildings on their own will not meet the Standard." "The applicant is requesting clarification regarding the application of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section 9.6.1. Each building in a multiple building project must comply separately with the requirements of EA prerequisite 2. Therefore projects may not trade interior lighting power allowances between different buildings. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2175" "2008-05-28" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "See below for treatment of District Thermal Energy systems in LEED-NCv2.2, LEED-CSv2.0, and LEED-CIv2.0." "USGBC has developed a document that clarifies how district or campus heating or cooling systems are to be treated in all Energy and Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for LEED-NC, LEED-CS, and SSc1, Options K & L under LEED-CI. That document is available for download from the LEED Reference Documents page, here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4176. All LEED-NC, LEED-CS, and LEED-CI projects involving district or campus heating or cooling systems that registered for LEED after this posting date must follow that guidance, and such projects that registered before this date may optionally follow that guidance." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2196" "2008-06-04" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "See below for treatment of District Thermal Energy systems in LEED-NCv2.2, LEED-CSv2.0, LEED-Schools, and LEED-CIv2.0." "USGBC has developed a document that clarifies how district or campus heating or cooling systems are to be treated in all Energy and Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for LEED-NC, LEED-CS, LEED-Schools, and SSc1, Options K & L under LEED-CI. That document is available for download from the LEED Reference Documents page, here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4176. All LEED-NC, LEED-CS, LEED-Schools, and LEED-CI projects involving district or campus heating or cooling systems that registered for LEED after this posting date must follow that guidance, and such projects that registered before this date may optionally follow that guidance." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2241" "2008-08-27" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The Natural Sciences Complex is a new three story 51,884 square foot, L-shaped building. The building includes college level science laboratories, laboratory support rooms, faculty offices, classrooms, and study areas. The HVAC system serving the laboratory wing of the building includes a single packaged VAV air handler with hot water reheat coils, a run-around heat recovery loop and a variable volume general exhaust system. In addition, laboratory spaces requiring fume hood exhaust are equipped with variable volume exhaust air devices mounted directly on top of fume hoods. The office wing is naturally ventilated and it is heated by a hydronic heating system. There are five classrooms that have mixed mode ventilation system and they are heated and cooled through the radiant slab. There are sixteen chemical fume hoods, and twelve chemical flow benches located in ten laboratories. Laboratory support rooms contain several storage cabinets that require continuous ventilation. Total fume hood exhaust rate is 11,600 cfm, and total exhaust rate of chemical flow benches is 2,100 cfm. Designed minimum ventilation rate for spaces containing chemicals is four ACH, as recommended by NFPA Standard 45. The same standard prohibits recirculation of chemicals originating from the laboratories. Since the 24,150 square feet laboratory wing contains only a few small spaces without chemicals (total floor area 450 square feet), the packaged air handler serving this area is 100% outside air system. This efficiently utilizes heat recovery system, reduces fan energy, and eliminates need for return air duct. The laboratory spaces are load driven. Total supply and exhaust flow rates for laboratory wing are 38,000 cfm and 33,000 cfm respectively. Following the requirements of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, Appendix G, Section G 3.1.1, based on usage, number of floors, conditioned floor area and heating source, our baseline model is a constant volume packaged single zone air conditioner with DX cooling coils and fossil fuel furnace. This type of system is assigned to each thermal zone. There is no thermal zone in the baseline model that has supply air capacity of 5,000 cfm or greater, and exhaust air energy recovery was not modeled in the baseline building according to Section G 3.1.2.10. This produced considerable energy savings due to the huge amount of outside air and the requirements for continuous ventilation of the laboratory spaces even during unoccupied hours. Since a large portion of our energy savings is the result of adding heat recovery to our system, we wanted to verify that we have correctly interpreted that the ASHRAE Standard does not require heat recovery in the baseline model for our building. Please advise if this modeling strategy is acceptable by USGBC." "The applicant requests confirmation that their modeling approach that excludes exhaust heat recovery from the baseline case due to baseline case system size is an acceptable modeling approach. This modeling approach is acceptable. The language of Section G3.1.2.10 with regards to system design airflow and outside air percentage refers to baseline case systems, not to proposed systems. As indicated above, the baseline case systems for the laboratory spaces all have air flow less than 5,000 cfm. Therefore, based on the description above, energy recovery would likely not be required in the baseline case systems serving the laboratory spaces. Please note that thermal blocks must have airflow less than 5,000 cfm for any thermal block where energy recovery is modeled for credit, and the size of the thermal block may not be manipulated to reflect a smaller thermal block than would typically be modeled just to avoid the prescriptive requirement for energy recovery." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2299" "2008-08-26" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "This project consists of the rehabilitation of a one-story brick warehouse in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, built by the Arizona Hardware Supply Company in 1930. It has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and formal listing is anticipated following review and approval by the National Park Service (NPS). The building will be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior\'s Standards for Historic Preservation. Plans are being reviewed by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The warehouse will be converted into a commercial office housing about 40 people, and may be the first project in Phoenix to combine LEED-NC certification with the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits. Existing brick walls are of double wythe construction, 8 inches in nominal thickness, with original bricks set in a common bond pattern. Consistent with the Secretary of the Interior\'s Standards for Rehabilitation, changes to the building that would alter the historic character, both inside and outside, are not recommended by the SHPO and NPS. Therefore, the addition of insulation to the interior or exterior walls is prohibited since it would alter one of the main ""character-defining features"" of this building. The ground floor level and surface of the concrete floor are also subject to the constraints of the SHPO/NPS requirements. The only proposed alterations to the building envelope are the addition of storm windows, with insulated glass placed on the interior of the window opening to provide thermal efficiency, and providing insulation to a value of R-30 for a roof that has never been insulated. EAp2 requires this renovation project to comply with ASHRAE 90.1 2004 Sections 5-10 and EAc1 requires that the project secure 2 points, or a 7% improvement over the same ASHRAE standards. While we anticipate meeting the mandatory and prescriptive requirements listed in Sections 6-10, we are unable to meet the requirements in Section 5: Building Envelope. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Section 4.2.1.3 lists exceptions to compliance with Sections 5-10 for ""a building that has been specifically designated as historically significant by the adopting authority or is listed in \'The National Register of Historic Places,\' or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the US Secretary of the Interior need not comply with these requirements."" In a Credit Interpretation Ruling dated 5/27/2008, a brick warehouse project similar to this one, also being renovated to meet the Secretary of the Interior\'s standards, and reviewed by the applicable SHPO, and the NPS, was granted permission ""to exclude those components that cannot be upgraded to meet the mandatory and prescriptive requirements due to the standards of the Secretary of the Interior and of the National Park Service from demonstrating compliance"" in order to comply with LEED Energy and Atmosphere requirements. With this in mind, will this project be allowed to meet EA Prerequisite 2 without securing two points under EAc1, considering that ASHRAE 90.1-2004 exempts the project from meeting the requirements, owing to its historical significance?" "The project team is requesting a variance from meeting the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 under EAp2, specifically Section 5-10. The project team is also requesting a variance from meeting the mandatory achievement of 2 points under EAc1 (achieving a 7% energy cost savings for an existing building renovation). For EAp2, the cited exemption for meeting the requirements of Section 5-10 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 applies to this project, provided that the project receives the designation, listing, or eligibility that is required by the exception. For EAc1, there are other efficiency measures that can and should be pursued to meet the minimum target of 7% in energy cost savings for existing building renovations. As the opportunity to pursue other energy saving measures exists for this project, the request for variance is denied." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2301" "2008-10-24" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "This project involves the construction of a new refrigerated freezer warehouse. The overall facility is 140,000 sf. 105,000 sf is a -10 degree F freezer space, and the remaining area a +45 degree F freezer truck dock. There is a small office area, as well as support and maintenance areas. The facility operates as a distribution warehouse. Shipping and receiving logistical staff occupy the building. An automated material handling system means no people are in the freezer portion of the building. The facility is staffed 10 hours per day, 5 days per week; the refrigeration systems run continuously. A CIR was submitted on January 4, 2008, and responded to on February 4, 2008 for an earlier project being planned by the same building owner. This CIR builds on the previous response, and also raises some new questions. In the previous CIR, we defined a set of baseline parameters for areas not covered by 90.1 and indicated sources that support these assumptions. The reviewer requested specific documentation regarding baseline parameters and “industry standard practice”. Baseline Design In the previous CIR, the choice of refrigerant, compressor type, and capacity control method were based on “Customer’s Standard Practice”. The reviewer asked for more justification. Please confirm that the following will be acceptable. Refrigerant The baseline refrigerant in the previous CIR was R-22, although ammonia may be more widespread in facilities this size. However, the densely populated location and the local codes at the new site would require 24/7 certified ammonia operators. As the building will be staffed 10 hours, M-F, a 24/7 operator is not viable. The proposed building will use R-22 for these reasons. Can an R-22 system be the baseline? We will provide copies of the appropriate local regulations or other documentation to support this baseline assumption. Compressor Type and Capacity Control We are requesting confirmation that a letter from the refrigeration contractor stating that the customer’s choice of single stage rotary screw compressors with slide valve control to be industry standard practice is acceptable documentation. Automation within the Warehouse One of the most innovative aspects of the facility’s proposed design is fully automated material handling in the freezer. All the customer’s other facilities use regular forklifts. The automated material handling system provides energy benefits including reduced plug and infiltration loads. The greatest impact, though, is that the warehouse will be dark unless maintenance or repairs are required. We are requesting confirmation that it is acceptable to use a baseline that assumes human-driven forklifts, and that the warehouse would be equipped with fixtures that have a lighting power density according to AHSRAE 90.1 and operate on a schedule that is defined by usage of the warehouse. The proposed case energy model would be based on “lights out” operation. This saves refrigeration energy as well as lighting energy. In the office space, we will model occupancy sensors based on the 10% reduction in Appendix G Table 3.2. In the freezer truck dock, we will model the lighting as being controlled by an identical schedule in both the baseline and proposed designs. However, we are contending that a completely automated warehouse goes beyond occupancy sensor control, and are requesting confirmation that we are not limited to the 10% lighting reduction described in Table 3.2. Documentation will support the baseline assumption of an occupied, lighted freezer, and also show that the equipment in the proposed design will operate without the regular use of lighting fixtures." "The applicant is requesting the following as it relates to the certification for their refrigerated warehouse: 1 - Can an R-22 system be used as a baseline? 2 - Confirmation that a letter from the refrigeration contractor stating that the customer\'s choice of single stage rotary screw compressors with slide valve control to be industry standard practice is acceptable documentation. 3 - Would it be fair to state that a completely automated warehouse goes beyond occupancy sensor control, and are requesting confirmation that they are not limited to the 10% lighting reduction, and whether the proposed case may be modeled with the ""lights out"" operation. On #1, using an R-22 system as a baseline: You may not use refrigerant type as an efficiency measure. On #2, confirmation that a letter from the refrigeration contractor stating that the customer\'s choice of single stage rotary screw compressors with slide valve control to be industry standard practice is acceptable documentation: A letter from a refrigeration contractor who will be providing the equipment/services for this project does not comprise sufficient documentation of industry standard practice. Documentation should be based on a study or survey or publication from an industry association. On #3, whether a completely automated warehouse goes beyond occupancy sensor control, and not being limited to the 10% lighting reduction, and whether the proposed case may be modeled with the ""lights out"" operation: Yes, the proposed case can be modeled with the ""lights out"" operation provided sufficient supporting documentation is submitted, to the satisfaction of the project certification review team. It is recommended that any savings associated with the automated operation in the proposed design are documented through the use of an exceptional calculation method (since schedules must be identical for both the baseline and proposed design, unless otherwise stated). If credit is taken for measures including but not limited to lighting power density, occupant density, or equipment power density, please provide sufficient justification in the submittal. Finally, the process loads should be modeled based on the proposed design\'s actual power requirements as stated in the LEED NC Reference Guide, page 181, under the Process Energy section. The baseline process loads should be identical to those in the proposed design. Applicable Internationally. " "2026, 5178, 5342" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2338" "2008-11-11" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The project in question consists of four (4) separate residence hall buildings, each consisting of 4 floors at approximately 42,000 s.f. All buildings are composed predominantly of 4-bedroom student apartments shared by 4 occupants each which are occupied all year around through a 12 month lease. Each apartment unit includes toilet rooms and a kitchen with each being served by a split system air-source heat pump. Ventilation air is provided by operable windows. EA Prerequisite 2 requires the project to comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and with some exceptions, 90.1 requires the use of programmable thermostats. Essentially the question is, does the project need to use programmable thermostats? In this building type, using programmable thermostats can potentially create problems as well as increase energy use. For example: 1) The heat pump air handler will use more electrical energy when it uses electric resistance heat instead of the heat pump mode when an unscheduled manual over-ride request calls on it to recover from the heating set back temperature to the occupied temperature, 2) Extra humidity will be introduced when windows are opened to recover to occupied temperatures due to unscheduled manual over-ride requests, and 3) A large number of nuisance maintenance requests should be expected every year when new residents occupy the apartments. ASHRAE 90.1 has an exception to the programmable thermostat requirement for hotel guest rooms (6.4.3.2a), and referring to this exception the ASHRAE User\'s manual says, ""While guest rooms are not occupied continuously, the occupancy patterns are not predictable, making the use of time clocks and other off-hour controls difficult to apply."" The User Manual description of the space\'s use pattern fits these residence apartments in that each student has a variable schedule; so, it seems reasonable that programmable thermostats will not be required. Complicating the issue is a provision in AHSRAE 90.1 (9.4.1.4) that requires a ""master shut-off switch"" for hotel guest rooms. A master shut-off for a student apartment residence would be unwanted by the University Owner and potentially a safety hazard. Therefore, electing to call the residence apartments ""hotel guest rooms"" in order to apply the programmable thermostat and then adding the ""master shut-off switch"" is not an acceptable alternative. In summary, the question is, would it be acceptable to use non-programmable thermostats and no ""master shut-off switch?" "The applicant is requesting clarification on the space type classification for the project. Based on the project description above, the space type classification for the project is ""Dormitory - Living Quarters"" as per section 9.6.1 and must comply with all the mandatory provisions of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 sections 5 through 10." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2346" "2008-11-11" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The prerequisites requirements are to design the building project to comply with both- the mandatory provisions (Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4 and 10.4) of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (without amendments); and the prescriptive requirements (Sections 5.5, 6.5, 7.5 and 9.5) or performance requirements (Section 11) of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (without amendments). The project consists on installations for a public park, they are: an exterior amphitheater, one administrative office, exhibition space and a refreshment stand. The project is designed 100% ""off-grid"" with Photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy source completely, that means that there will be no electrical consumption from fossil fuels. A battery bank will provide the back up power. The project is 100% naturally ventilated. There is no mechanical ventilation and it will be operated accordingly. The ASHRAE\'s Mandatory provisions in Section 5: Building Envelope will not be met completely, outside air infiltration will be promoted, all windows will be opened during operation hours. The walls are designed to be permanently permeable to outside air. Accordingly, thermal transmission will not be possible to achieve in some of the spaces. Section 6: HVAC, will not be contemplated for being outside of the project\'s scope. Section 7: Water heating for service water will be designed with solar thermal water heaters. Therefore water heating in this project is contemplated as no electrical consumption. Section 8, 9 and 10 will be completely contemplated. Because of project\'s scope, complete compliance with ASHRAE would be incoherent. But being a 100% renewable energy, \'off grid\' project, its design is streamlined for energy efficiency, and obliged to operate as intended, as it will be demonstrated. Therefore we think we will meet outstandingly the EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1 intents, even if deviating from ASHRAE\'s provisions and requirements. Is our assumption correct?" "The project team is requesting variance on meeting the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004, given that this project is a public park with some structures, all of which will be naturally ventilated. Section 5.2.1 - Compliance, of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 states: ""For the appropriate climate, space-conditioning category, and class of construction, the building envelope shall comply with 5.1, General; 5.4, Mandatory Provisions; 5.7, Submittals; and 5.8, Product Information and Installation Requirements; and either..."" (It goes on to state Section 5.5 (Prescriptive Building Envelope Option) or Section 5.6 (Building Envelope Trade-Off option) as the compliance paths - however LEED only allows for Section 5.5 as the compliance path). Section 5.1.2 - Space-Conditioning Categories, Sub-Section 5.1.2.3, of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 provides further guidance on this, stating that: ""In climate zones 3 through 8, a space may be designated as either semiheated or unconditioned only if approved by the building official."" (See definitions in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for italicized terms, including ""building official"".) (Note that it is not clear from the request, as to whether this project is indeed in climate zones 3 through 8.) On the prescriptive building envelope requirements, assuming that this designation will be approved, given this situation; the project team can follow Section 5.5.2 of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 which states: ""If a building contains any semiheated space or unconditioned space, then the semi-exterior building envelope shall comply with the requirements for semiheated space in Tables 5.5-1 through 5.5-8 for the appropriate climate."" The project team may interpret this requirement to apply only to parts of the building envelope that are not designed to be permeable to outside air, as long as supporting documentation to this effect is provided. On the mandatory provisions (Section 5.4), subject to the space-conditioning category designation being approved by the building official; and provided ALL of the structures are indeed naturally ventilated/conditioned (including the administrative office, exhibition space and refreshment stand); it is acceptable to exclude requirements for Section 5.4.3 - Air Leakage for this project. Please provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, when submitting for certification/review. Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 would fall under the purview of Section 5.5.2 as quoted above. Furthermore, this should be accompanied by a letter of undertaking by the responsible party that in the event that alterations are made to the structures under the scope of this certification that would affect it\'s energy performance in the future, these alterations will comply with the requirements of this prerequisite. The project must also include occupied interior space in order to be eligible for certification. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2417" "2009-02-03" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We would like clarification as to whether EA p2 can be demonstrated and EA credit 1 points achieved based on centrally managed lighting wattage limits. Specifically, we would like to know if the wattage limits set by the DALI (Digital Addressable Lighting Interface) system, which allows maximum wattage limits to be programmed into all fixtures, can be used to show credit compliance. Our project, the fit-out of an office space, would like to utilize these controls in order to provide exceptional energy efficiency, individual occupant control including individual fixture dimming in the open office space, as well as to control these lamps with IR occupancy sensors, photo sensors, and programmable time clocks for additional energy savings. The system also includes facility maintenance reporting of lamp and ballast status and energy usage monitoring and trend logging and could include demand response interface with BMS if desired, though not part of this project. While setting the maximum allowable wattage on the DALI system absolutely limits the amount of wattage able to be drawn by the fixtures and this limit is not something that can be over-ridden by building occupants, it is not clear if computer based controls are allowed by ASHRAE 90.1 or the LEED Rating System. It is standard practice for LEED projects to utilize reduced ballast factors or physical wattage limiters as a means to claim energy efficiency from a fixture. The dimmable DALI system and efficient T-5 linear fluorescent lamps proposed by our project cannot utilize fluorescent ballasts with a reduced ballast factor, but the equivalent energy savings can be seen by capping the fixture wattage when setting up the space\'s lighting controls. The alternative to this approach would be to utilize fewer fixtures and produce more light from each, but then the individual workstation controllability provided by the DALI system is negated because individual fixtures are shared by multiple workstations. We would like verification that it is OK to use the maximum allowable wattage set in the DALI system to compare to the AHSRAE lighting power density. The building owner will provide a signed note stating that the wattage limits will not be altered (and won\'t need to be as the lighting levels are designed to be completely sufficient with the 70% wattage limits proposed). This is consistent with the LEED Core and Shell energy modeling requirements that allow reduced lighting power densities if included in the lease agreement (a written confirmation that these levels will be met). Consistent with ASHRAE and the LEED Reference Guides, we will assume the highest wattage lamps acceptable in the fixtures and follow all other ASHRAE guidelines." "The applicant is requesting verification regarding the applicability of electronically controlled lighting wattage limits by using a Digital Addressable Lighting Interface (DALI) system. The proposed approach is an acceptable means of lighting power reduction provided the overall maximum Lighting Power Density is maintained at or below ASHRAE 90.1 specifications. The commissioning authority (CxA) must confirm that the wattage limits used to document credit achievement for EAc1 are programmed correctly as part of the fundamental commissioning activities performed to achieve EAp1. Additionally, the project team should provide documentation to verify the wattage limits (e.g., cutsheets, specifications, etc.) when documenting compliance for EAc1. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2506" "2009-03-11" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "We have 108 heat pump PTAC\'s that meet the efficiency requirements of EA prerequisite 2 credit. Due to application requirements, we need to also have 2 vertical heat pump PTAC units. The 2 vertical heat pump PTAC units do not meet the efficiency requirements of EA prerequisite 2 credit. Efficiencies are below: 108 units at EER of 12.8, EA prerequisite 2 requires 11.3 2 units at EER of 9.6, EA prerequisite 2 requires 11.3 The 2 units that don\'t meet the efficiency requirement are similar in capacity to the other 108 units. These units need to be ducted however and they do not offer a ducted unit with the high efficiency option. These units were added to meet building code needs. With only 2 out of 110 total units not meeting efficiency requirements, the average efficiency of the 110 units (all similar in capacity) easily exceeds the minimum requirements. Is it okay to have these 2 units out of 110 total?" "The project team has furnished further details explaining that in trying to meet building code requirements to provide heating and cooling to the corridors with outside air, and due to the peculiar configuration of the building, it was unable to use minimum efficiency ducted PTACs for 2% of the building\'s cooling capacity for two corridors of the building. It also states that ducted PTACs were not available in a higher efficiency option. Per LEED-CI Reference Guide, all equipment components must meet the mandatory, minimum efficiency requirements as listed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 Tables 6.8.1A-G. Utilizing the mean efficiency of all equipment in a system is not listed as an acceptable method of satisfying this requirement in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. The PTACs (even those that are ducted) must be rated at the rating conditions specified in ARI 310/380 and 95" "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2590" "2009-05-21" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Project Description Our request is for guidance on the energy modeling protocol for a building that has both a connection to a district thermal energy system and a stand-alone plant within the building for LEED CS EA prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance and EA credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance. The project was registered for LEED CS after May 28, 2008 and is subject to the USGBC paper titled ""Required Treatment of District Thermal Energy in LEED-NC version 2.2 and LEED for Schools version 1.0, May 28, 2008"". The project is a high-rise speculative office building. The total area is just over 550,000 ft2 and includes office space, lobby, cafeteria and retail at the ground level. A combination ground source heating and cooling system and an ice storage chiller and closed-cell cooling tower primarily comprise the building heating and cooling systems. The district connection includes chilled water and heating hot water service from the centralized chiller and boiler plant. The engineer has sized the system to operate primarily using the plant within the building (downstream equipment), but it would need to draw from the district system for a fraction of the year. The intent is that the use of the district would be to provide redundancy and peak shaving. Our first question is whether the ruling for the Required Treatment of District Thermal Energy applies to this project. The mechanical engineer estimates 15-25% of the annual heating and cooling energy will be provided by the district system with the remainder provided by the on-site ice storage chiller and ground source heating and cooling. Does the percentage of heating and cooling provided by the central plant determine the applicability of the ruling? Our second question is how to follow the procedures outlined in the ruling, if it applies. We see two options for modeling the baseline building in Step 1. These options are described below. Step 1 - Stand Alone. Proposed Building: Model the ground source heating and cooling systems and ice storage as per the installed capacity. Model the connection to the district system using chilled water and steam meters. Sequence the energy model to draw on the district heating and cooling system as needed to satisfy the load. Using the actual purchased energy rates for electricity and natural gas, we will calculate the cost of generating chilled water and steam. These rates will then be applied to the chilled water and steam meters in the Proposed Building energy model. Baseline Building option 1: Model the baseline systems with an on-site code-compliant chiller and boiler, as per ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G Table(s) G3.1.1A and G3.1.1B in lieu of ice storage chiller and ground source heating and cooling system. Model the connection to the district system using chilled water and steam meters. Sequence the energy model to draw on the district heating and cooling system as needed to satisfy the load. Using the actual purchased energy rates for electricity and natural gas, we will calculate the cost of generating chilled water and steam. These rates will then be applied to the chilled water and steam meters in the Proposed Building energy model. Baseline Building option 2: Model the baseline building with a connection to the district chilled water and steam with meters. Using the actual purchased energy rates for electricity and natural gas, we will calculate the cost of generating chilled water and steam. These rates will then be applied to the chilled water and steam meters in the Proposed Building energy model. Step 2 - Connection to District System. Proposed Building: Model the ground source heating and cooling systems and ice storage as per the installed capacity. Model the central plant using a virtual plant to provide the hot water with a 70% Higher Heating Value efficient boiler and a cooling plant with a COP of 4.4 (as per page 8 of the aforementioned USGBC publication). Baseline Building: Model the building with one ASHRAE compliant chiller/boiler plant as ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G Table(s) G3.1.1A and G3.1.1B." "This project falls under the purview of District Energy System (DES) and is required to follow the guidance stated in this document found on the USGBC website at http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4176 It must be noted that the percentage DES contribution is not relevant - it still must be modeled in conjunction with the on-site plant as per the DES guidance. With regard to the DES plant energy costs that include overhead, capital costs, etc., it will not be allowed to model a portion of the system using DES rates and then offset with internal utility costs. The proposed case should be modeled as designed. The baseline case should be modeled as outlined in the CIR for the connection to the District System: ""Proposed Building: Model the ground source heating and cooling systems and ice storage as per the installed capacity. Model the central plant using a virtual plant to provide the hot water with a 70% Higher Heating Value efficient boiler and a cooling plant with a COP of 4.4 (as per page 8 of the aforementioned USGBC publication). (Note: Using documented efficiencies of the DES plant in lieu of these default values is also acceptable.) Baseline Building: Model the building with one ASHRAE compliant chiller/boiler plant as ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G Table(s) G3.1.1A and G3.1.1B."" Applicable internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5042" "2007-03-15" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The intent of this credit is to ""Establish the minimum level of energy efficiency for the proposed building and systems."" The requirements of this credit are as follows: - Comply with the mandatory provisions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. - Comply with the prescriptive requirements or performance requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. Table 5.5-4 of the Standard, Building Envelope Requirements for Climate Zone 4A: The requirement is as follows: - Fenestration, vertical glazing 40.1-50 % of wall, nonresidential, Ufixed = 0.46, SHGC = 0.25. The exception that we would like to take is as follows: - Field side glazing does not comply with the requirements. Compliant glazing would negatively impact the function of the space. The glazing is there to allow spectator viewing of the ballgame, and its optical and impact properties are of great importance. Single pane, clear glazing must be used in order to provide optimum viewing at all angles, and to provide the required impact resistance. - Since the spaces which have field side glazing are occupied only during a limited number of special events, all Code Authorities throughout the country have allowed us to exclude this component from complying with the published criteria in either the ASHRAE Standard or their own local codes. - We ask that the following values are accepted: U = 1.0, SHGC = 0.75. These performance criteria are typical of ballparks. - We would like to model the baseline building performance and the proposed building performance with the proposed field side fenestration. The project would see neither a positive nor a negative effect on the energy savings." "The compliance paths under ASHRAE 90.1-2004 include the prescriptive path, a trade-off option, and the energy cost budget method. If a project cannot comply with the standard using the prescriptive path or trade-off option, then it must use the energy cost budget method or the performance approach (Appendix G). The energy cost budget method defines a budget building with less than 50% window area. The energy cost budget method allows a project to have elements that do no meet the prescriptive requirements of the code as long as the energy performance of these elements is offset by more efficient elements. In modeling this project, the budget building shall have windows that meet the prescriptive requirements of the standard. The proposed model must reflect the actual design. Both models should include the same schedules that reflect actual usage. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5046" "2007-04-10" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Background: This project is using underfloor air distribution (UFAD) as the main HVAC system. Passive floor-mounted swirl-type diffusers (manually operated by the occupants for interior ""cooling-only"" zones. They will not be controlled via thermostats. The perimeter zones will be served by UFAD fan powered units (with electric heat for heating) and will be controlled via space mounted thermostats. The prerequisite requires compliance with ASHRAE 90.1-2004, section 6.4. Section 6.4.3.1.1 states: ""The supply of heating and cooling energy to each zone shall be individually controlled by thermostatic controls responding to temperature within the zone"". Question: Does the use of passive floor mounted diffusers in the UFAD system and controlled as described above meet the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004, section 6.4.3.1.1 and this prerequisite?" "The project team is requesting clarification regarding the requirement for zone-specific thermostat controls in order to meet the requirements of section 6.4.3.1.1 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for EAp2. The interior spaces of the project receive cooling air through in-floor swirl-diffusers that are occupant controlled, but there is no zone-specific thermostat control. In this case, the design meets the intent of the ASHRAE 90.1 requirement. Ultimately the temperatures in these spaces are maintained in a similar approach to a VAV box, by regulating air flow. The occupants control this airflow based on personal comfort levels, and are effectively the controls system (similar to operable windows in a naturally ventilated and cooled space). Provided that the system meets the rest of the requirements of section 6.4 (especially 6.4.3.2.1-Automatic shut-down), and thus does not supply unneeded cold air during unoccupied hours, the design appears to meet the intent of ASHRAE 90.1 and LEED-NC 2.2- EAp2. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5126" "2008-05-28" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "See below for treatment of District Thermal Energy systems in LEED-NCv2.2, LEED-CSv2.0, LEED-Schools, and LEED-CIv2.0." "USGBC has developed a document that clarifies how district or campus heating or cooling systems are to be treated in all Energy and Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for LEED-NC, LEED-CS, LEED-Schools, and SSc1, Options K & L under LEED-CI. That document is available for download from the LEED Reference Documents page, here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4176. All LEED-NC, LEED-CS, LEED-Schools, and LEED-CI projects involving district or campus heating or cooling systems that registered for LEED after this posting date must follow that guidance, and such projects that registered before this date may optionally follow that guidance. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5162" "2008-11-11" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The tenant\'s fitout design complies with most of the requirements of EA P2 however due to local design standards and the clients operational process requirements there are 2 clauses that we are not able to achieve and as such will require a waiver for : ASHRAE 90-1 2004 Clause 6.5.4 Hydronic System Design and Control As part of the Client\'s global network the fitout for the above project includes a data centre/ main communications room (MCR). The cooling load associated with the MCR is served by a number of chilled water units connected to 2no tenant packaged air cooled chiller. Due to the constant nature of the process load associated with the MCR room it is not proposed to install Variable speed drives to the pumps. The heat load associated with the servers contained within the MCR room is maintained at close to 100% due to the international nature of the network that the system serves and as such it is operated 24/7. The introduction of Variable Speed pumping to this system (as required to comply with ASHRAE 90.1 -2004 clause (6.5.4.1 Hydronic Variable Flow Systems) would therefore not achieve any energy saving and as such is not proposed to be installed. The client is willing to install them if necessary however does not understand how the procurement, manufacture, installation and maintenance issues associated with the additional equipment increases the sustainability of the project, given the very limited scope for VSDs to reduce energy use. Furthermore the additional complexity of Variable Speed Drives within such a critical process system adds further risk to the client business. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 allows exemption to clause 6.5.4.1 where a reduced ""flow is less than the minimum flow required by the equipment manufacturer for the proper operation of the equipment served by the system"" we believe that we qualify for this exemption as the client\'s critical system would be affected by any reduction in chilled water flow. As such it is proposed to install the pumps as a constant volume system albeit fitted with high efficiency motors which when combined with high efficiency air cooled chillers which exceed the minimum set out in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 (table 6.8.1C) produce an energy efficient solution which does not compromise the clients operational requirements. Further to this the application of temperature reset on the chilled water system (clause 6.5.4.3) would also be detrimental to the clients critical systems as such we believe that the system is exempt under the relevant exemption clause within the standard. ASHRAE 90-1 2004 Clause 8.4.1 Voltage Drop The local design standards require the voltage drop across the system to be sized as a maximum of 4% with 3.5% being from the feeder conductors and 0.5% from the branch circuits. The ASHRAE standard calls for a maximum voltage drop at design of 5% with 2% being from the feeder conductors and 3% from the branch circuits. As such the local design standard calls for a smaller voltage drop across the system, relative to the ASHRAE standard, but with a different split between sections. The project is therefore looking for a credit interpretation regarding this issue on the basis of the local design standards being lower on a total system basis, albeit with a different percentage split across the system." "The applicant is requesting a waiver from the provisions of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Mandatory Requirements as they pertain to the data-center portion of the project. As per section 2.3, sub-section (C), requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 do not apply to process requirements provided it meets the following criteria: 1. Equipment is primarily dedicated to process loads (50% or more of the flow is supplying process loads). 2. Exemption applies only to EAp2 and not EAc1 Regarding the issue of voltage drop, the project team should use the requirements of the local governing code. Applicable Internationally. " "100000751" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5173" "2009-02-09" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Compliance with the document, Required Treatment of District Thermal Energy System, version 1.0, requires projects served by a central plant to demonstrate achievement of the EAc1 2 credit prerequisite performance threshold as a ""stand-alone"" building. In the stand-alone scenario, the loads served by the central plant are included in the energy model, but maintained as cost-neutral between the base case and design case. The assumed intent of this policy is to ensure that buildings served by a central plant are efficient on their own and not simply inefficient appendages of an efficient plant. However, for the circumstance where several building projects are developed in conjunction with a central plant, this requirement penalizes the addition of appropriate loads from the buildings to the central plant by making it increasingly difficult for each building project to meet the EAc1 2 credit prerequisite. With each load transferred, the opportunities to improve the development\'s overall energy performance increases, while the opportunities for efficiency improvements in each building become increasingly limited. Ultimately, it becomes impossible to achieve the EAc1 2 credit prerequisite as a ""stand-alone"" building. We respectfully request an alternative compliance path for building projects that are tied to a central plant that is designed and constructed specifically for those buildings. Without an alternative compliance path, this policy discourages neighborhood developments from employing central plants to their full capacity. The Project The developer is constructing a neighborhood in climate zone 7 that includes 9 anticipated LEED-rated buildings and a central plant. The plant will serve each building with hot and chilled water for space conditioning, domestic water heating, and snow melt. The plant will generate hot water with 96% efficient condensing boilers and chilled water with a premium efficiency chiller with water-side economizer. The plant serves loads to each building that constitute 80-90% of their total energy use. In effect, the District Thermal Energy document requires each of the development\'s buildings to individually surpass the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 baseline by 14% by improving loads that constitute just 10-20% of their total energy use. These loads reflect contributions from the building envelope, lighting power density, controls and exhaust for corridor supply systems, and fan coil units (baseline). A baseline energy model for a building within the project has demonstrated that the central plant loads account for 90% of building energy use: space heating and cooling for 21%, domestic hot water for 54%, and snowmelt for 15%. The 10% that remains is for lighting and the base process load, each accounting for 5%. Modeling of reasonable improvements including R-20 walls, R-50 roof, U=0.3 windows, a 20% lighting power density reduction, and reduced fan-power on each fan-coil unit would only yield a 4% improvement over ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Further energy modeling demonstrated that with R-30 walls, R-60 roof, U=0.2 windows, 0.0 LPD, (no lights at all), and minimized fan-power the building would reach just 11%. Given these results the design team has concluded that achieving the 14% threshold is impossible with such limited opportunities for improvement. REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMITTALS: The project team proposes amendment of the District Thermal Energy stand-alone modeling requirement by one of the following paths: 1. Exempt building projects from the stand-alone modeling requirement that are built along with a central plant as part of an overall master planned development. 2. Exempt building projects from the stand-alone modeling requirement that have a central plant built as part of the overall master planned development - and where that central plant provides more than 40% of the building project\'s annual energy cost (assumed space conditioning load plus 10%). This exemption would incentivize the expanded use of central plants in development projects beyond space conditioning loads." "The applicant is requesting exemption from the stand-alone modeling requirements specified in the Required Treatment of District Thermal Energy document (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4176). While it is clear that the central plant and proposed buildings have been included in a development master plan, the project may not be exempted from the 14% energy cost savings requirement (i.e., two points for EAc1) for each stand-alone building. The District Thermal Energy document specifically states that projects must demonstrate that buildings be able to achieve two points for EAc1 without savings projected for the District Energy Supply (DES) system. The applicant has indicated that the DES system constitutes 80-90% of the total energy load of each building. Preliminary simulation runs appear to indicate that achievement of 14% energy cost savings by increasing envelope performance and lighting design is not possible. It is not clear why the loads associated with the envelope and lighting parameters (i.e., heating load, cooling load, and interior lighting loads) are represent such a small part of the total building load. The project appears to be located in Climate Zone 7, a substantially heating load dominated climate; heating loads should represent one of the largest end use consumptions. The project team should verify that the schedules, temperature setpoints, glazing percentages, and envelope parameters have been selected correctly for the baseline and proposed cases. The required minimum stand-alone building energy costs savings should be achievable through envelope efficiency increases. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5182" "2009-02-20" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The team is requesting that you please verify the meaning of the sentence in ASHRAE 90.1, Table G3.1 regarding baseline envelope requirements for existing buildings..""For existing building envelopes, the baseline building design shall reflect existing conditions prior to any revisions that are part of the scope of work being evaluated"". Please confirm if this means that the walls, roof, windows, etc for the baseline is to be modeled to match the existing conditions NOT according to the values in Table 5.5-1 thru 5.5-8." "If an existing envelope component is untouched, the baseline is as that component exists. However, if an existing component is modified, the baseline needs to meet the requirements for alterations in Section 5.1.3.\n\nFebruary 28th, 2011 update: This ruling is considered invalid and may not be used in a certification application by any project team. Its continued inclusion in the database is for reference purposes only. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5213" "2009-04-27" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "For LEED-NC V2.2, the prerequisite of EA Credit 1, since June 26, 2007, has been to surpass ASHRAE Energy Standard 90.1-2004 by 14%. For office buildings under 20,000 SF, Option 2 allowed the use of the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide (AEDG) for Small Office Buildings 2004. Using this AEDG would give the project 4 points, provided all applicable criteria were met for the climate zone in which the building was located. In 2006, ASHRAE published the AEDG for Small Retail Buildings. Since LEED-NC V2.2 was published in 2005, and the AEDG for Small Retail Buildings was not published until 2006, it obviously could not have been included in the Reference Guide as published. We have searched both the Errata and the CIRs, and have found nothing in the Errata and only three CIRs (10/23/06, 12/18/07, 02/22/08) that refer to this AEDG, none of which is similar to our situation, and two of which were turned down for fairly obvious reasons. It has been our understanding that USGBC, under their concepts and mission of keeping abreast of new developments relative to energy savings, allowed the use of these AEDGs as they became available. However, the USGBC website currently seems to state that the AEDG for Small Retail Buildings is not applicable for LEED NC V2.2, and that this AEDG will only be applicable in LEED 2009. Not only does this not seem to be in synchronization with the concept of keeping up with current ASHRAE developments and AEDGs, but also seems to unfairly penalize small retail projects under LEED-NC V2.2. Our project is a true retail establishment, i.e., an addition to an existing automobile dealership. It qualifies under the ASHRAE AEDG for Small Retail Buildings, as it is less than 20,000 SF. The building has been designed and constructed to meet all the pertinent requirements in the AEDG for Small Retail Buildings, and thus to receive 4 energy points. We are therefore requesting that we be allowed to qualify for EA Credit 1 under Option 2, using the AEDG for Small Retail Buildings. This owner has done everything they can do to make this addition a green and sustainable building, but cannot meet the 14% requirement without using this AEDG since an automobile sales showroom does not qualify as a Small Office Building., and we cannot surpass ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 14% with Options 1 or 3. Thank you for your consideration." "To be eligible for LEED certification, the project must demonstrate the building meets ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum mandatory and prescriptive provisions as outlined on page 165 of the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide, as well as demonstrate at least a 14% energy savings in comparison to ASHRAE 90.1-2004. In order to use the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide (AEDG) for Small Retail Buildings, this project will have to use the LEED-Retail rating system when available. The URL on the USGBC website is http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1734 A CIR ruling dated 2/22/08 offers details. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5215" "2009-05-21" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The following request is regarding three glass garage roll-up doors that are proposed for this Rescue Station Apparatus Bay. Due to tight site conditions and a shared apparatus exit drive path; it is important safety requirement that glass doors be provided that allow for a line of sight to the adjacent, existing fire station. Exiting dispatched Rescue trucks must have full view of the vehicles in the parking lot and other exiting fire apparatus that both share the common travel pathway. The space is heated and ventilated but not mechanically cooled. This is a garage for the storage of vehicles and will not be heated to the same level as the main building. A total of six 12ft wide by 14ft high, roll-up doors are to be provided; three of the proposed doors, used for entrance, are to be a highly insulated product. In order to provide the required high visibility for the exiting emergency vehicles the three, exit roll-up fire apparatus doors are proposed to be aluminum framed glass doors with a solid bottom panel. No aluminum and glass garage door had been tested to the standards required (NFRC and/or DASMA105) according to review with installers, manufacturers and the Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association. We are requesting an exemption from the rating requirements for these exit garage doors for the following reasons: 1. Glass doors are required to provide visibility for exiting Rescue Apparatus. 2. No testing data is available for glass roll up doors. 3. The rear doors are highly insulated and we believe the average of all six doors is sufficient to pass the thermal requirements." "The project team is requesting clarification regarding being granted an exemption for meeting the standards for the exit garage doors of their Rescue Apparatus Bay. The reasons provided for exempting the doors from the testing requirement is that no testing data is available for glass roll up doors. This is acceptable given the special circumstances of this case, because these doors are located in a garage which is an unoccupied space, and they open to the outdoors rather than to an occupied space. The project submittal should provide information justifying why NFRC 400 air leakage testing is not feasible for the doors in question as well as photographs/drawings of the tight site conditions to demonstrate that glass doors must be used for safety reasons. In order for the project to exempt the manufactured doors from the requirements, the following criteria must be met: 1. The doors required are unavailable are certified to meet the NFRC 400 requirements. 2. The manufactured doors exempted open directly to spaces less than 3,000 square feet of building area. 3. At least 85% of the doors for the project meet the Door air leakage labeling requirements." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "5223" "2009-07-30" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The project is a greenhouse-exhibit-office space complex located in urban Denver, CO that serves as a horticulture production facility for the regional botanic gardens. Since the project consists largely of greenhouse space, the project team would like confirmation of baseline assumptions in this process-load dominated space. In addition, modeling limitations exist within the EnergyPlus simulation software for simulating evaporative cooling. The project team would like to confirm acceptance of the analysis method proposed for overcoming the software limitations. Greenhouse Baseline Characteristics In the CIR dated 4/30/2008 concerning energy use in greenhouses, the ruling clearly states that any conditioned space that is used primarily to support plant growth should be modeled as a process space and all characterizations for the space, its space conditioning equipment, and controls should be the same in the baseline and the proposed-design energy model. Therefore, in order to demonstrate efficiency improvements for these end-uses, the project team must follow an exceptional calculation method (ECM) that compares standard design practice to design improvements. The design team desires to demonstrate design improvements in three areas as outlined below. 1) The greenhouse proposed design includes high performance glazing. The project team has found standard design practice for glazing selection for greenhouses to include single-pane clear glass. The team would like to confirm that this is an acceptable baseline for the analysis. 2) The greenhouse design includes an automated shading system to decrease solar heat gain and radiative heat loss in the space. The project team would like to confirm that a greenhouse design without a shading system is an appropriate baseline. 3) The greenhouse design includes an automated natural ventilation system controlled by space and ambient temperature sensors. The ventilation system releases heat from the upper-most portion of the greenhouse when the space temperature exceeds the set-point temperature during mild ambient conditions. The project team believes that automated natural ventilation controls are not part of standard design practice and should be excluded from the baseline greenhouse. The team would like to confirm this baseline condition. Evaporative Cooler Controls Implementation of evaporative cooling systems with EnergyPlus is problematic as active control of evaporative cooling can not occur in conjunction with system or zone heating controls. If there is a need for evaporative cooling, the system operates. Otherwise, the system is off and no heating can be provided at the system or zone level. The EnergyPlus development team has been made aware of these issues but the fix is not foreseen for the near future. This problem results in heating zone loads not being met in the greenhouses. The project team proposes the following solution to work around this evaporative cooling modeling limitation. The solution implemented by the energy analyst is to schedule the evaporative cooling on/off for each hour in the year (8760 schedule), based upon the cooling and heating set points and achieved zone temperatures. Establishing the schedule is an iterative process. However because the evaporative-cooler on-schedule is specified at an hourly time step (and not smaller), the zone temperature for some hours falls below the set point. To minimize these occurrences, the evaporative coolers were shut off when they overcooled the space. But in doing so, this increased the number of hours that loads were not met in the space to be beyond 300 hours. Since this is a process space, the baseline model and proposed design models were treated similarly. Is it acceptable to exceed the 300 hour loads-out-of-range limit due to this simulation software limitation?" "The applicant is asking two questions. It appears, based on the description provided, that the greenhouse portion of the project is correctly identified as process space and the associated energy use should be considered process load. The first question asked requests confirmation that exceptional calculation baselines they are proposing are acceptable. The proposed baselines sound reasonable, but further supporting documentation will need to be provided to verify that the baseline used does in fact represent the industry standard. As seen in a similar CIR dated 1/16/2009, the following information must be provided to show process energy savings via the Exceptional Calculation method: 1. Detailed narrative description of the greenhouse system or process for which credit is taken 2. Detailed narrative and back up data for determining the baseline energy consumption 3. Narratives and cutsheets of the proposed new equipment clearly highlighting the efficiency metric for each piece of equipment for which credit is claimed. The second question asks for clarification if the HVAC systems serving the greenhouse area can be exempt from the 300 unmet load hour requirements. The applicant states that the baseline and proposed systems are treated similarly given the process use of the space. Any credits for process energy savings should be claimed through Section 1.7 - Exceptional Calculation Methodology (ECM). Thus, it is understood that Evaporative coolers will not be modeled in the baseline and intermediate proposed case. As such, the 300 hours unmet load hour exemption is not granted for this scenario. When Evaporative Coolers are modeled for ECM, provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the unmet load hours in the other conditioned areas do not exceed 300 hours. The 300 unmet load hours exemption is granted for the greenhouse area, however, the LEED submission will require a full narrative explaining how the system was modeled and why the unmet load hours exceed the baseline. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5911" "2005-05-23" "New Construction" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "The Saranac is a renovationa and historic preservation of a 4 story hotel. The building will be converted into a multi-use facility that will include housing, offices, sysmposium space, theater and restaurant uses. The building is designated as a contributing structure to the Downtown Spokane National Historic district. the building is also on the local Historic Register and is subject to review of the local Landmark Commission. The design restrictions will result in restoring the storefront and primary elevations to 1900 era appearance. In our case the entire building will be renovated but the esterior appearance of the building will remain largely unchange with the exception of the addition of exterior sun shades on the non-primary elevations. The building systems will be replaced. Can the buildings existing envelope chariteristics be used to extablish the energy usage baseline per ASHRAE 90.1 (Section 4.1.2.2)?" "Yes. As established in the EAp2 CIR Ruling dated 3-11-03 and ASHRAE 90.1 Sections 4.1.2.2, the historical fa" "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10286" "2013-10-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - New Construction, Healthcare" "A centrifugal chiller, manufactured in Brazil, is specified for the project. The chiller is not AHRI certified and there is no laboratory in Brazil that can do this test. Since there is no laboratory in Brazil that can do this test, to comply with section 6.4.1.4 Verification of Equipment Efficiencies of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Standard, would the equipment fall under option d (if no certification program exists for a covered product, the equipment efficiency ratings shall be supported by data furnished by the manufacturer)? Can this equipment be used in the project?" "A supplier’s claims regarding energy efficiency would not be considered sufficient to document compliance with EA Prerequisite 2 (Minimum Energy Performance) and EA Credit 1 (Optimize Energy Performance) for a centrifugal HVAC unit that has not been tested and certified by a 3rd party in accordance with AHRI Standard 550-590. However, if the project team can provide documentation that the efficiency has been tested by a third party using an equivalent standard for HVAC efficiency, this testing would be sufficient in lieu of the AHRI Standard 550-990 testing. Any differences in test conditions and the resulting adjustments to the efficiency values claimed in the energy model would need to be described in the project submittal documentation. Alternatively, the project team may use the supplier’s claims regarding energy efficiency if the commissioning scope of work includes field testing of the equipment efficiency for the range of full- and part-load design conditions under which the building will operate; any adjustments related to altitude, etc. must be accounted for in the commissioning testing. In this case, the energy modeling documentation must include details about the commissioning functional testing method to confirm the performance of the chiller at full and part load operation. If the LEED submittal is provided as a split design / construction phase submittal, and the commissioning agent determines that the equipment efficiency does not meet or exceed the efficiency values claimed by the supplier, the energy documentation must be resubmitted at the construction phase with the values measured by the commissioning agent." "None" "None" "X" "Brazil" "LEED Interpretation" "10291" "2013-10-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Retail - New Construction, Healthcare" "For buildings with high unregulated energy loads, is it acceptable to show compliance with EA prerequisite: Minimum Energy Performance by considering the unregulated load separately from the ASHRAE 90.1 energy model?" "For buildings where unregulated loads account for more than 60% of project energy cost, the following alternative compliance path may be followed:\n 1. Create an energy model that includes all loads (regulated and unregulated), then remove the unregulated loads from the model through post-processing and demonstrate that the project meets the minimum performance required for EAp2.\n 2. Demonstrate that the proposed unregulated loads are 5% more efficient than the industry standard baseline or company average production efficiency using the one of the three ECM approaches outlined below.\n 3. In addition to the standard documentation required for EAp2, submit calculations showing energy model results with all loads (regulated and unregulated) included and all documentation necessary to demonstrate the 5% process energy improvement.\n\n This alternative compliance path can only be used to demonstrate compliance with the EAp2 Minimum Energy Performance requirement. Points for EAc1 must be determined with 100% of the unregulated load included in the energy model.\n\n Document ECMs using one of the following three methods:\n 1. For ECMs listed in the Interpretation database:\n - Calculate the annual energy cost savings using the procedure listed in the database\n - Enter the calculated savings into section 1.7 of the EAp2 form\n - Reference the LEED Interpretation number and upload the required documentation\n\n 2. For projects establishing a new baseline technology as the industry standard, submit exceptional calculations and at least one of the following:\n - List of three facilities built in the last five years that use the baseline technology\n - Current utility incentive programs for new construction that establish the baseline\n - Published studies justifying the baseline technology as standard practice\n\n 3. For projects with proprietary manufacturing processes, demonstrate that the production process is more efficient than the company’s average production efficiency:\n - Identify at least three facilities built in the last five years that manufacture the product\n - Calculate the process’ past average Energy Consumption Index (ECI) in units of energy per product manufactured to establish the baseline production efficiency\n - Provide the new process’ estimated ECI, anticipated production level, and an explanation of how these numbers were determined\n - Calculate the annual production process energy cost savings using the baseline ECI, proposed ECI, and anticipated production level" "10237, 2544, 2475, 2416, 1756" "None" "X" "X"