[Bldg-sim] LEED Energy Model - 90.1-2004 Appendix G and Local Code

[Nick Caton]

For a C&S or similar case where an actual lighting design isn’t available to reference, citing locally enforced requirements makes sense.  Robby’s actual experience on this front strengthens my comfort level for such a scenario.

 

For cases where an actual lighting design does exist at LEED submission, I’ll voice one potential hole in this logic:  On a nationwide level, not all AHJ’s actually enforce local/state adopted energy standards/codes, and others do so only inconsistently.  USGBC can rely upon certain localities to enforce “required” minimum performances, but not as well upon others.  

 

At least for LEED-NC, with all the existing LEED/90.1 language built on documenting and modeling the actual, proposed design (as opposed to what’s minimally required per local code or otherwise), I have doubts for a final LEED model submission USGBC would accept a statement along the lines of “Final LPD’s will be no worse than XXX.”  Under that scenario, I’d inform/push the interested parties that your model’s final LEED results simply require the actual lighting design, if you’re being told otherwise.

 

If someone has experience to the contrary, I’d love to hear it however!

 

~Nick

 

 



NICK CATON, P.E.
Senior Engineer

 

360 Analytics
9750 3rd Ave NE, Suite 405

Seattle, WA 98115
office:  206.557.4732 ext. 205
 <http://www.360-analytics.com/> www.360-Analytics.com

 

From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Robby Oylear
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:28 PM
To: Bernie Hont
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED Energy Model - 90.1-2004 Appendix G and Local Code

 

I've successfully claimed lighting energy savings for tenant improvement areas of Core & Shell projects subject to the Seattle Energy Code which would require the tenant improvements to be subject to a LPD that was more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1.  Your approach sounds reasonable.

 

-Robby

 

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Bernie Hont <bhont at girard.com <mailto:bhont at girard.com> > wrote:

I came across this old post regarding LEED energy modeling versus local code.

 

http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/2008-October/037274.html

 

I have been searching for an answer as to whether LEED will accept the local code lighting power density allowable using the building area method using an ASHRAE 90.1-2007 baseline. The local jurisdiction adopted IECC 2012 as of July 2012 but the projects is registered under LEED 2009, using the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 baseline. Per IECC 2012 either the IECC lighting densities can be used, or there is an alternative compliance path that allows ASHRAE 90.1-2010 to be used. Both of those have a building area lighting allowance of 0.90 W/SF for an office building versus 1.0 W/SF for ASHRAE 90.1-2007.

 

Has anyone attempted to claim a lighting power reduction when the local code requires a stricter lighting density than the current LEED version being used for a project? This seems to be a reasonable justification since the proposed building will be required to meet a more strict standard than the baseline standard.


_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141103/b7e5fd24/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4429 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141103/b7e5fd24/attachment.jpeg>