[BLDG-SIM] Exterior Ltg & LEED EA Credit 1

[Fred Porter]

Thanks, Kendra & Rohini

The input summary list for the EA Cr1 example that Rohini refers to does
include separate lines for tradable and non-tradable exterior surfaces.
In the non-tradable row, the kW is same for baseline and proposed. 

--

Fred 

 

 

  _____  

From: Tupper, Kendra [mailto:Kendra.Tupper at sf.fk.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:03 AM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Exterior Ltg & LEED EA Credit 1

 

I have taken credit for exterior lighting savings in the past, and it
was never challenged.  I believe the non-tradable surfaces statement in
Chapter 6 only applies when you are complying with 90.1-2004 via the
prescriptive method.  Any time you move to the performance method, you
can trade off your exterior lighting with other things such as
mechanical and interior lighting.  For LEED energy modeling, your design
must meet all mandatory requirements of 90.1-2004, but not all
prescriptive requirements.

 

The way I have approached this in the past was to calculate allowed
exterior power for each type of exterior lighting (based on the areas
being lit in the Proposed design) and sum the total kW + 5% (Section
9.4.5 of 90.1-2004).  Then, I modeled the actual kW in the Proposed
design.

 

Again, I have never been challenged on this, but I am not certain that
this is the correct approach.

Kendra Tupper
LEED® AP
FLACK + KURTZ
405 Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct          (415) 402-5840
Email   kendra.tupper at sf.fk.com

  _____  

From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Fred
Porter
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:22 AM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Exterior Ltg & LEED EA Credit 1

 

I'm confused as to whether any exterior lighting power can differ
between the proposed & baseline models. Any one have any experience from
EA Cr1 submissions? 

 

The Users Manual for App G states at the end of the "Baseline Lighting"
Section, ".... credit may be taken for improvements in exterior lighting
efficacy or wattage... the proposed building can take credit for a more
efficient system." So proposed parking lot lighting at 0.08 W/sf or
whatever would be compared to a baseline of parking lot lighting at 0.15
W/sf. I believe façade lighting must be the same in both, as these are
"non-tradable surfaces" in Chapter Six. 

 

But an apparently poorly-considered Credit Ruling from 4/25/07 simply
states "No. Appendix G does not allow trade-offs for exterior lighting,"
directly contradicting the UM. 

 

Perhaps a post like this should be on the USGBC "engineers"
"member-to-member" forum, but I don't see much traffic there. 

 

-- 

Fred W. Porter, B.S., LEED A.P.
Senior Engineer
Architectural Energy Corp., Boulder CO 

  

 

 
 
==================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
 
 
nt>
0pt'>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COYou received this e-mail because you
are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM




===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20070928/4df64f1d/attachment-0002.htm>