[Bldg-rate] LEED NC v2.2 EAc2
Zoeteman, Mark R.
mrzoeteman at FTCH.com
Thu Apr 8 06:17:17 PDT 2010
Thank you for your response. Yes I agree that Reference Guide lists answers of 3.08% on page 191 and 3.1 % on 201. However when you plug in the numerical values into page 191 equation, result is actually 2.99%. The two equations are different and yield different results, but the Reference Guide lists same answer.
From: David S Eldridge [mailto:DSE at grummanbutkus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 7:18 PM
To: Zoeteman, Mark R.
Subject: RE: LEED NC v2.2 EAc2
I think your reference guide edition may be out of date, mine has 3.08% (rounded to 3.1% in EAC2) in both locations using your second example as the basis.
The example in your reference guide must have incorrectly used $88,308 as the total energy cost instead of $85,669. This seems to be corrected now.
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, HBDP
From: bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Zoeteman, Mark R.
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:14 PM
To: bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-rate] LEED NC v2.2 EAc2
Question about EAc2 On-Site Renewable Energy:
The v2.2 Reference Guide indicates:
In EAc1 example on page 191
Percent Renewable = Site-Generated Renewable/(Proposed Building Performance + Site-Generated Renewable)
3.0% = $2,639/$88,308
In EAc2 text in top right section of page 201
Percent Renewable = Site-Generated Renewable/Proposed Building Performance
3.1% = $2,639/$85,669
The value indicated in both places is 3.08 or 3.1%. However, when you plug in values for EAc1 example, result is 3.0%, which agrees with the example entered into a EAc2 Template.
Has anyone investigated this discrepancy with USGBC or GBCI?
Mark Zoeteman, FTC&H
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bldg-rate