[Equest-users] 90.1 G3.1.1 and Manufacturing Facilities

Nicholas Caton ncaton at catonenergy.com
Tue Apr 28 12:09:30 PDT 2015

Hi Marcus,

Noting the phrase "predominant condition" sources from the subnotes of Table
G3.1.1A, and addresses separate issues from those tackled by the exceptions
under section G3.1.1, it is my impression you should be free to leverage
G3.1.1 exception 'b' for the zones with atypical process loads, even if
those zones make up the majority of the facility by area.  I can't speak for
LEED precedent in this circumstance, but your proposal  passes my gut check
for what it's worth.

That said, you should ideally:
1. Spend at least one hot coffee mug trawling through
http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations to collect/review any directly
applicable precedents.  If you come up empty, a cursory review of
http://www.leeduser.com/discuss may be illuminating, but be mindful even
though GBCI/USGBC staff participate there, those discussions are not
considered "official" and are less cite-able.
2. Take the stance/tone of "does not seem appropriate" and develop that into
a strong justification to leverage this exception.  Have a discussion with
the mechanical designer(s) so that you can concisely address why a CV system
makes sense for the actual design in lieu of a VAV system, and further
outline how the substantially different process/occupancy loads in play
support this descision.
3. Present that justification and proposal to use a Baseline system type #4
for those spaces to GBCI prior to submission (read: well in advance of your
own submission deadline), to get an official response you can directly cite
in documentation.  Leverage the "certification question" button here:

A related point/suggestion: in the past I've handled the conundrum of
process-heavy facilities of this nature, where the incident process loads
drown out the otherwise substantially energy-efficient building systems.  I
have since resolved that next time I am handling one of these projects under
LEED-NC, I would open a discussion with GBCI to propose applying the LEED-CS
alternative compliance path (ACP) for EAp2/EAc1.  From putting that to
practice, it strikes me as a very fair and appropriate alternative framework
to adjust LEED EAc1 point thresholds, rewarding efficient design
hidden/muted behind substantial process loads which the building owner may
have little/zero influence or control over.

Just food for thought - though that may be a battle you might want to pass
on ;)

Best of luck,



Caton Energy Consulting
  1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202
  Shoreline, WA 98133
  office:  785.410.3317

-----Original Message-----
From: Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On
Behalf Of Marcus Eliason
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:26 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] 90.1 G3.1.1 and Manufacturing Facilities


I am modeling a large, conditioned manufacturing facility with attached
offices.  The baseline building is modeled as System 8, “VAV with PFP
 Boxes.”  The proposed building uses constant volume RTUs.  From a design
perceptive, I see how a VAV system makes sense for a standard office
building, but using VAV for a large and tall manufacturing space does not
seem appropriate.   Does anyone have any experience using the exceptions in
Section G3.1.1 to allow for a constant volume system (similar to Sys 4) in a
manufacturing space?

The manufacturing area will have higher process and occupancy loads than the
offices, but is the predominant condition when compared to the office
spaces.  I did see some 90.1 interpretations that indicate that only the
smaller spaces (<25,000 sqft) would be eligible for the G3.1.1 exceptions,
but wanted to see if anybody had a different experience arguing it to LEED.

Thank you,

Marcus T Eliason, PE, LEED AP

Apollo BBC
Better Building Consultants

5116 Bissonnet, No 262
Bellaire, Texas 77401

Better Answers.

Equest-users mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to

More information about the Equest-users mailing list