[Bldg-rate] [Bldg-sim], why does LEED-CS EAc1 documentation have to be so @#%^$confusing?!

Nick Caton ncaton at smithboucher.com
Wed Aug 4 11:59:07 PDT 2010



I have nothing constructive to offer, except to:

1.       Copy this query over to [Bldg-rate], which has less overall
activity but a pertinent and distinct group of subscribers from
[bldg-sim] - you may get additional useful input via that list.

2.       Agree wholeheartedly with the subject line.


Actually, I might strike "CS" and just lump all of LEED v3 into there
=).  I expect I'm not the only one (blindly?) hoping the leadership
within GBCI/USGBC are actively steering us towards a day where LEED
documentation, and EAc1 with its prereq's in particular, can be a
relatively less time/patience-consuming experience for everyone


Best of luck - I'll look forward to reading some better responses than
this one!







25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036

fax 913 345.0617

Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com 


From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:41 AM
To: Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] why does LEED-CS EAc1 documentation have to be so


I've asked this question before, but never really got a good answer, so
I'm trying again in case anyone has new info.


Has anyone successfully submitted a LEED v3 Core and Shell Energy Model?


Under v2.0, there was a LEED-CS EAc1 calculator explained here:




Spreadsheet link:




It was a great way to subtract out energy loads that the Owner/Developer
did not have control over.


However, under the new v3 Green Building Reference guide (includes NC,
CS, etc), they appear to have gotten rid of the sliding Developer/Tenant
scale, and now award just a different quantity of points for CS vs NC.
It certainly looks that way, and the v3 online template couldn't
possibly be more confusing to me, so I can't really tell by looking at


Is this true?  If so, it's a shame, because if you have a Core and Shell
project where there is an Owner requirement to provide a mechanical
system capable of supporting 5 Watts / sq ft tenant plug loads, you can
no longer back out the plug loads as an energy consumer "not controlled
by the Owner/Developer".  I could reduce the plug load density to help
shrink the numerator/denominator, but that's not really an accurate
thing to do in a C&S project, since the Developer HAS to provide cooling
for 5 W / sq ft because of things like SFOs, specific tenant
requirements, etc.  C&S projects are a completely different animal than
an NC project where you already know and can guarantee tenant loads.


That sucks.  Can anyone confirm?


GHT Limited
James Hansen, PE, LEED AP

Senior Associate

1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200

Arlington, VA  22201-4749

703-338-5754 (Cell)

703-243-1200 (Office)

703-276-1376 (Fax)

www.ghtltd.com <http://www.ghtltd.com/> 




The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee.  It is
the property of GHT Limited.  Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of
this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to ght at ghtltd.com
<mailto:ght at ghtltd.com> , and destroy this communication and all copies
thereof, including all attachments.  Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100804/54c16ea3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100804/54c16ea3/attachment.jpeg>

More information about the Bldg-rate mailing list