You've spent months coordinating with your design team, inputting every building parameter with precision, and fine-tuning your energy model to maximize LEED points. Then the final review comes back: Denied. Appeal required.
If you've experienced this frustration, you're not alone. While preliminary review comments are expected as part of the normal LEED process, too many energy models require multiple revision cycles—or worse, get denied at final review and enter the lengthy appeal process. This can delay project timelines by months and jeopardize certification goals.
The High Cost of Energy Model Denials and Appeals
LEED energy modeling goes through two review phases: preliminary review (where comments are expected) and final review. While preliminary comments are normal, the real problems arise when models have serious issues that lead to:
- Multiple revision cycles between preliminary and final review (4-6 weeks each)
- Denial at final review requires the formal appeal process
- Appeal delays of 8-12 weeks or more
- Additional consulting fees to address fundamental modeling errors
- Reduced EA points if revised models show lower savings
- Missed certification deadlines are impacting building occupancy
- Budget overruns from extended timelines
For a typical commercial project, a final review denial and subsequent appeal can cost $5,000-$20,000 in additional fees and 3-6 months of lost time.
The 6 Most Common Reasons LEED Energy Models Get Denied
After working on hundreds of LEED projects across new construction, core and shell, commercial interiors, and major renovations, we've identified the recurring serious issues that lead to denial at final review and trigger the appeal process:
1. Baseline HVAC System Selection Errors
The baseline model is your reference point for all energy savings calculations. Even minor deviations from ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G can invalidate your entire submission.
The most critical mistake we see: In LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) projects, many modelers incorrectly select the baseline HVAC system type based on the tenant's project area alone. However, the baseline system must be determined by the entire building area, not just the tenant space being modeled.
Other common baseline errors include:
- Window-to-wall ratio not properly translated to baseline per Appendix G requirements
- Service water heating assumptions that don't align with Table G3.1
- Lighting power density calculated incorrectly for space types
- Envelope performance values that deviate from baseline requirements
Why it matters: If your baseline doesn't comply with Appendix G, reviewers will reject your model regardless of how impressive your proposed savings are. This is especially crucial for LEED-CI projects where the building context must be properly accounted for.
2. Incomplete MEPC Documentation
LEED reviewers need to trace your modeling assumptions back to design documentation. The Minimum Energy Performance Calculator (MEPC) is a critical component of your submission—and incomplete forms can lead to denial at final review.
The problem we consistently see: Many projects submit MEPC forms with blank fields. Even when certain items are not applicable to the project, these fields should be explicitly marked as "N/A" to demonstrate to the reviewer that the energy modeler didn't simply overlook these items.
Other documentation issues that risk denial:
- Energy model inputs that don't match architectural or mechanical drawings
- Unusual assumptions without narrative justification
- Incomplete exceptional calculation method documentation
- Schedule discrepancies between model and project description
- Missing references to source documents
The fix: Create a comprehensive modeling narrative that explains every assumption, references source documents, and proactively addresses any unconventional inputs. Never leave MEPC fields blank—mark items as "N/A" with a brief explanation when appropriate.
3. Unregulated Load Inconsistencies
LEED requires careful handling of unregulated loads (process energy). Reviewers scrutinize these assumptions because they're easy to manipulate for artificially higher savings.
Frequent issues:
- Process loads included in proposed but not baseline
- Receptacle loads modeled inconsistently between models
- Kitchen equipment, elevators, or data centers handled incorrectly
- Insufficient justification for process energy assumptions
Remember: Both your baseline and proposed models must include identical process loads unless you're claiming savings from specific process equipment improvements. Any deviation requires thorough documentation and justification.
4. Thermal Zoning Errors in Multizone Systems
One of the most technically significant—yet often overlooked—modeling errors involves how spaces are represented in multizone HVAC systems.
The critical mistake: Many energy modelers create thermal zones based on space usage or how zones appear on the mechanical plan, rather than modeling each actual thermal zone separately. This approach fundamentally misrepresents how the HVAC system operates and can significantly distort energy consumption predictions.
Why this matters:
- Each thermal zone has unique load characteristics, thermostat control, and airflow requirements
- Grouping dissimilar spaces into single zones masks diversity in heating/cooling demands
- Reviewers can identify this error when zone descriptions don't align with system performance
- The model's ability to accurately predict energy use is compromised
The correct approach: Model each thermal zone individually based on actual HVAC zoning, not administrative space types or mechanical plan groupings.
5. VRP Calculator Misalignment
A frequently missed requirement: your energy model's ventilation rates must align with the Ventilation Rate Procedure (VRP) calculator required for EQ Prerequisite 1 (Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance).
Why this causes review failures:
- LEED reviewers cross-check outdoor air rates between your energy model and VRP calculator
- Discrepancies suggest either modeling errors or inadequate ventilation design
- Inconsistent ventilation rates can invalidate both your energy model and IAQ prerequisite
Common misalignment issues:
- Outdoor air flow rates in the energy model don't match VRP calculations
- Space types or occupancy densities differ between documents
- Ventilation effectiveness values applied inconsistently
- System-level vs. zone-level ventilation not properly coordinated
The fix: Ensure your energy modeler and mechanical engineer coordinate closely. The outdoor air assumptions in your energy model must match the VRP calculator submitted for EQp1. Document this alignment explicitly in your modeling narrative.
6. Improper Energy Unit Reporting in MEPC
A frequently overlooked issue that creates unnecessary confusion and delays: submitting MEPC forms with energy outputs in inconsistent or inappropriate units.
The most common problem: Some energy modeling software (like IES-VE) outputs all energy consumption in kBtu—including electricity. Many modelers simply copy and paste these results directly into the MEPC without converting electricity to kWh or kW as expected by reviewers.
Why this causes problems:
- Reviewers must manually convert every line item to verify calculations
- Increases likelihood of reviewer errors and subsequent clarification requests
- Makes it difficult for reviewers to quickly validate energy cost calculations
- Suggests lack of attention to detail in documentation
- Slows down the review process, potentially triggering additional comments
The correct approach: Always present electricity consumption in kWh or kW, and fuel consumption in therms or kBtu as appropriate. Make the reviewer's job easier—they'll appreciate the clarity and your submission is more likely to pass review quickly.
Pro tip: Create a summary table that clearly shows:
- Electricity: kWh and kW (demand)
- Natural gas: therms or MBtu
- Energy costs: dollars aligned with utility rate structure
- Percentage savings clearly calculated and labeled
How to Avoid Denials and Appeals
The good news? Every one of these serious issues is preventable with the right expertise and quality assurance process. While preliminary review comments are expected, you can minimize revision cycles and avoid denial at final review.
Independent Review is Essential
Before submitting to USGBC, your energy model should undergo an independent third-party review by LEED experts who know exactly what issues lead to denials. At InversEnergy, our review process catches an average of 4-8 potential issues per model—serious problems that could have resulted in denial at final review and triggered the appeal process.
Our independent review identifies:
- Baseline HVAC system selection errors (especially critical for LEED-CI)
- Incomplete or blank MEPC fields that need N/A notation
- Thermal zoning misalignments in multizone systems
- VRP calculator discrepancies with your energy model
- Unregulated load inconsistencies between baseline and proposed
- Energy unit reporting issues that confuse reviewers
Get Your Free LEED Energy Model Review
We're offering complimentary QA/QC reviews for projects planning LEED submission in the next 90 days.
Our expert modelers will identify potential serious issues—from baseline system selection errors to MEPC documentation gaps to VRP misalignments—and provide actionable recommendations to help you pass final review without an appeal.
What you'll receive:
✓ Comprehensive review checklist covering all 6 common denial triggers
✓ Specific findings with line-by-line feedback
✓ Actionable recommendations to fix issues before submission
✓ Confidence that your model will pass final review without appeal
Free Energy Model Review Offer