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

[Cam Fitzgerald]

Good morning, all,

 

LEED C&S projects have two options for dealing with future lighting systems that will be provided in future tenant improvements. Savings for future strategies may only be claimed for systems and equipment that are designed and installed as part of the C&S project unless the future tenants are required to implement particular strategies by a legal and binding document such as a Tenant Sales and/or Lease Agreement (TSLA).

 

In the scenarios described, it would seem that the TSLA may already cite the local code or developer specific requirements, or it would be a reasonable addition. For example, it is not uncommon to submit sample agreements stating that the maximum average lighting power density in future office tenant spaces is 0.9 W/sf which is 10% better than the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 minimum and if occupancy sensors are also required, further savings could be represented in the Proposed model. The requirements must be clearly defined, binding, and enforceable.

 

The specific TSLA requirements for various prerequisites sand credits can be found in CS Appendix 4 of the  LEED BD+C v2009 Reference Guide. Similar requirements apply for unfinished spaces in LEED-NC projects. These requirements are further clarified in LEED Interpretation 10102.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cam Fitzgerald

 

Energy Opportunities/a 7group company

 

 

From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of David Eldridge
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:01 PM
To: Nick Caton; 'Robby Oylear'; 'Bernie Hont'
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED Energy Model - 90.1-2004 Appendix G and Local Code

 

Sometimes the developer/owner might have an “in-house code” for the tenants to build-out as well…this also might be enforced similarly to the AHJ’s, especially if the rental market is lean in that area...but should also be acceptable to USGBC.

 

Either way, I think the intention is there.

 

I can see it both ways.

 

1.       It’s an imperfect system to certify today based on a future action…base the certification only on the scope that is presented.

 

2.       By allowing such a requirement, the team can be incentivized, and more tenants will build efficiently if these requirements become incorporated to the project than if they aren’t part of the project requirements. (Even if some slip through.)

 

I would make one exception – sometimes the developer is related to one or more of the major occupants, or the major occupant is known in advance. In that case, the “tenant” should be able to hold to any known requirements…it’s not a lease taking place in the future, things are lined up already.

 

Think several “named” towers that are custom-built. I don’t know that USGBC necessarily makes a distinction in this case, but it seems more solid that requirements will be passed through, as the LEED certification is probably at the tenant’s request.

 

David

 

 

                                                                                                

 

David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP

Grumman/Butkus Associates

                                                                                                

 

 

From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 7:28 PM
To: 'Robby Oylear'; 'Bernie Hont'
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED Energy Model - 90.1-2004 Appendix G and Local Code

 

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

 

 

360 Logo cropped

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> 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141104/08e2b102/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/20141104/08e2b102/attachment.jpeg>