[Bldg-sim] LEED EaC1

[Nathan Miller]

>From my experience the Seattle Energy Code (as opposed to the Washington
State Energy Code) gets you pretty close to the two point requirement for
typical commercial buildings; maybe in the 11-12% savings range. Then if
you tack on a couple of not-too-harsh measures you can get to the
threshold. 

 

It has actually been a little disappointing (from the view point of an
energy-conservation-dork, not of course from a consultant providing a
service to a client) to see that some barely-better-than-code buildings
slide by the minimum efficiency requirements and then call it a day. 

 

Nathan Miller

Senior Energy Engineer/Mechanical Engineer

direct: 206.788.4577

fax: 206.285.7111 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nieman
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:20 AM
To: Tim Dion; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED EaC1

 

I would agree that a Washington State Energy Code Minimum building will
not likely get you a point in NC 2.2 EA Cr 1. I've seen savings in the
5-10% range for office buildings with similar system types and
conventional lighting densities and controls. I believe EA Cr 1
(correctly) encourages more innovation than just a simple HVAC system
selection over another that meets code minimum. You really need an
integrated design approach to achieve EA Cr 1 (envelope upgrades, lighting
upgrades including controls, HVAC upgrades, etc.).

 

Mark Nieman, PE, CEM | McKinstry | Sr. Energy Engineer 
d 206.832.8152 | m 206.510.4760 | f 206.832.8552 
FOR THE LIFE OF YOUR BUILDING 

 

 

  _____  

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Tim Dion
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:47 AM
To: 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'
Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED EaC1

I've been hearing from a number of sources that you can get 2 EaC1 LEED
points under NC 2.2 just by modeling a State Code Building against an
ASHRAE Appendix G Baseline building.

 

This has not been the case with any of the LEED simulations I've done with
eQuest. Typically a Washington Energy Code 2006 building against an ASHRAE
Appendix G building comes in with an energy cost reduction of about 5%,
which doesn't achieve 1 point. This is typically with a Design system
consisting of WSHPs served by a central condenser water plant with dual
condensing boilers and a fluid cooler vs a Baseline system consisting of
PSZ DX Cooling, Gas Furnace Heat. 

 

I'm curious what others have experienced in this regards.

 

Tim Dion, LEEDR AP 
Mechanical
HARGIS ENGINEERS 
600 Stewart Street 
Suite 1000 
Seattle, WA 98101 
 <http://www.hargis.biz/> www.hargis.biz 

 

This email is the property of McKinstry or one of its affiliates and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error please notify the
sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying,
disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly
forbidden. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090127/a7f2f932/attachment-0002.htm>