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" "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" "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" "1773" "2007-05-16" "Commercial Interiors" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Pacific Lutheran University is doing a major interior remodel of its University Center Building. The mechanical scope for this job is limited to moving diffusers and adding three direct expansion air conditioning coils in the existing ductwork. No work is being done to the existing air handlers or other mechanical systems. The LEED-CI Reference Guide states that the requirement of the credit is to ""Design portions of the building as covered by the tenant\'s scope of work to comply with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 or the local energy code, whichever is more stringent."" As the tenant\'s scope of work is limited to the new air conditioning coils, they are the only pieces of equipment that will comply with ASHRAE 90.1. We feel that this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the prerequisite by bringing the new tenant mechanical systems into code compliance. We are also following the assumption that punishing the tenant for pre-existing equipment is not the goal of this credit. We would like confirmation that we are interpreting the \'tenant\'s scope of work\' correctly. Please confirm that we have interpreted the \'tenant\'s scope of work\' correctly and are meeting the intent of this Prerequisite?" "The project team is requesting clarification regarding the applicability of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 HVAC requirements to existing HVAC systems. Per the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standard, alterations to HVAC Systems in Existing Buildings shall follow all the requirements listed in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Section 6.1.1.3. If no ductwork is being added or replaced, then ductwork does not need to comply with Sections 6.4.4.1 & 6.4.4.2. Based on the information provided in this CIR, the project team is correct in stating that the new air conditioning coils are the only pieces of mechanical equipment that need to comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Any alterations to the envelope, service water heating, power, and / or lighting systems are also required to comply with the requirements of 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" "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" "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" "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" "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" "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" "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" "5226" "2009-06-04" "Commercial Interiors" "EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance" "Our project is a commercial office tenant improvement which occupies the 10th floor of an existing 12 story building in New York City. Our scope of work will consist primarily of an interior cosmetic refurbishing of a previously occupied space. According to LEED CI v2.0 EA Prerequisite 2 - Minimum Energy Performance, the portions of the project covered by the tenant\'s scope of work have to comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or the local energy code, whichever is more stringent. It is our understanding that the base building mechanical system does not meet these requirements. Consistent with CIR\'s dated 04/23/2007 and 02/18/2008 and Rulings dated 05/16/2007 and 03/13/2008, respectively, we are seeking clarification that we are responsible only for those portions of the systems that we are modifying in our physical space and that previously installed base building systems supplying our space are exempted from the requirements of this prerequisite." "The applicant is requesting confirmation that existing base building systems, which are not included in the tenant scope of work, are exempted from consideration under the prerequisite. Yes, only portions of the building as covered by the tenant\'s scope of work are considered under this prerequisite. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"