Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "Global ACP" "100001389" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Option 1" "Add the following sentence between the two existing sentences in the option: ""Projects outside the U.S. may use a local benchmark based on source energy from their country\'s national or regional energy agency.""" "Global ACP" "100001390" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Option 2" "Option 2 should read: ""OPTION 2. Alternative Score""" "Global ACP" "100001391" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Option 2" "Delete the box that states ""Note for Projects Outside the U.S.""" "Rating System Correction, Reference Guide Correction" "100000230" "2010-01-08" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" " Rating System: 24, Reference Guide: 141" "CASE 1" "In the third line of the second paragraph, remove the text ""both"" and ""and all comparable buildings used for the benchmark"" so the paragraph becomes the following:\n\nHave energy meters that measure all energy use throughout the\nperformance period of all buildings to be certified. Each building\'s energy\nperformance must be based on actual metered energy consumption for\nthe LEED project building(s). A full 12 months of continuous measured\nenergy data is required." "Global ACP" "100001393" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 27" "Option 2" "Add the following before AND: ""Demonstrate energy efficiency performance by determining an alternative rating score using the Portfolio Manager tool to report the building\'s energy use data from the performance period. Follow the detailed instructions in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance, 2009 Edition.\nOPTION 2a. Streamlined Baseline (EAp2 only - 0 points)\nEnter energy use data during the performance period for at least 1 year into Portfolio Manager to determine the ""weather-normalized source energy intensity"". Use this value in the offline calculator to determine the percent reduction from the streamlined baseline. \n\nOPTION 2b. Energy Baseline Including Historical Data (up to 9 points)\nEnter at least 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data into Portfolio Manager in addition to the current year\'s data to determine the ""weather-normalized source energy intensity"" for each year. Use these values in the offline calculator to determine a baseline using the historical energy use data of the project building. \n\nOPTION 2c. Energy Baseline Including Historical Data plus Comparable Buildings (up to 18 points)\nIn addition to the historical data used in Option 2b, provide energy use data for at least 3 other buildings with similar uses over at least a 2-year period to determine the ""average energy performance of a similar building"" in Portfolio Manager. Enter this data into the offline calculator."" \n" "Reference Guide Correction" "100000687" "2010-11-03" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition$Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010" "143" "3. Summary of Referenced Standards" "Replace the text with ""Refer to the Summary of Referenced Standards section in EA Credit 1.""" "Rating System Correction, Reference Guide Correction" "100000688" "2010-11-03" "Existing Buildings" "1949, 2405, 2505, 2623, 5116, 5174, 5378, 100000676" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition$Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010" "Rating System: 24, Reference Guide: 141" "CASE 2, OPTION 1" "Replace the paragraph with the following text:\nDemonstrate energy efficiency performance that is better than 69% of\nsimilar buildings (69th percentile or better) by benchmarking against\nnational source energy data provided in the Portfolio Manager tool as an\nalternative to energy performance ratings. Follow the detailed instructions\nin the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations &\nMaintenance, 2009 Edition." "Global ACP" "100001385" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Case 1" "Delete the box that states ""This CASE is not available to Projects outside the U.S.""" "Global ACP" "100001386" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Case 2" "Add ""with a primary space type"" after ""For buildings""" "Global ACP" "100001387" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Option 1" "Option 1 should read: ""OPTION 1. Adjusted Benchmark Score""" "Global ACP" "100001388" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 26" "Option 1" "Delete the box that states ""This OPTION is not available to Projects outside the U.S.""" "Global ACP" "100001392" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 27" "Option 2" "Remove the first sentence for this option." "Global ACP" "100001394" "2012-07-06" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "X" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "EB O+M RS: 27" "Requirements" "Delete the Alternative Compliance Path for Projects Outside the U.S." "LEED Interpretation" "10046" "2011-05-09" "Existing Buildings" "For a subset of buildings on a campus seeking LEED EB O&M certification, it is proposed to account for chilled water and hot water provided by a central plant by installing flow meters and temperature sensors on the lines into each building. In addition, energy used by the central plant (electricity for chilled water and fuel for hot water boilers) will be monitored so that the portion associated with delivered chilled or hot water to each building can be determined. Confirm if this approach is acceptable." "This is an acceptable approach. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10125" "2011-11-01" "Existing Buildings" "This is a request for amplification and update of LEED Interpretation Inquiry No. 1920, EAp2, from 10/15/2007, which was written for LEED-EB v2.0 but is also shown as applicable to LEED-EB v2009. The original Interpretation dealt with data center submetering within an office building in relation to the building\'s ENERGY STAR score. Since ENERGY STAR requirements related to data center submetering have changed dramatically since this Interpretation was written, much of the content no longer applies. Effective June 2010, ENERGY STAR no longer allows exclusion of submetered data center spaces from larger buildings, even when the data center space is less than 10% of the building floor area.\n\nThere is a new data center benchmarking model within Portfolio Manager, which is based on the magnitude of IT energy use within the data center. Since isolated IT energy has typically not been submetered in office buildings in the past, there is a transition period established by ENERGY STAR from June 2010 to July 2013, during which the benchmarking tool can apply estimates of IT energy use based on the square footage of the data center space. Beginning in July 2013, submeter data will be required, and the new submeters will need to capture IT energy only, not all of the electricity serving the data center space. Therefore, the decision in Inquiry No. 1920 allowing extrapolation of 3 months of data center submeter usage to 12 months in order to exclude the data center from the ENERGY STAR profile no longer applies. However, there is a new situation where extrapolation of usage data from the new IT energy submeters does come into play. Although IT energy submeters are not required by ENERGY STAR until July 2013, in order to maintain a valid ENERGY STAR score at that point, the meters will need to have been in place 12 months prior. So many buildings are now in the process of installing these new submeters to capture IT energy only, and thereby displace the ENERGY STAR-provided estimated data going forward.\n\nOur project building was an early-adopter of the new metering scheme and installed an advanced IT energy submeter in its data center in February 2011. This meter has been capturing and recording IT energy data continuously on a 30-minute interval basis. The usage profile is extremely flat from hour-to-hour, day-to-day, week-to-week and month-to-month. We have graphs that show the 30-minute interval electric demand as a flat line 24/7 for 4 months thus far. IT energy is not affected by seasonal weather changes, so this 4-month period is a very solid basis to project 12 months of IT energy usage. We would like to use this data in Portfolio Manager and project backwards for the full 12-month history in order to calculate the building\'s ENERGY STAR score based on actual IT energy use rather than the ENERGY STAR estimated energy use. The data center in question is very energy-intensive, and the actual submetered IT energy is much higher than the ENERGY STAR estimated data. The impact on the building\'s ENERGY STAR score from the difference between 12 months of submetered actual IT energy data and the estimated data amounts to 9 to 10 ENERGY STAR points.\n\nSince the ENERGY STAR score using the actual submetered data provides a more accurate picture of the building\'s energy efficiency performance than applying the ENERGY STAR industry-average estimated data for IT energy, we would like to use the ENERGY STAR score that is based on the actual data. At the time of submittal, we will have 5 to 6 months of the submeter data, which we will extrapolate back another 6 to 7 months to generate a current ENERGY STAR score. We will also provide the tabular and graphical meter output reports to show the consistently flat usage profile throughout the data collection period.\n\nSince many buildings will be in a similar situation during the ENERGY STAR transition period through at least July 2013, a LEED Interpretation establishing the minimum acceptable time period for IT energy submeter data to be extrapolated to a full 12-month history in ENERGY STAR for EAp2 and EAc1 would be very useful. The Interpretation could also stipulate a requirement that the consistency of IT energy use be demonstrated during the measurement period to validate the accuracy of extrapolating the data over a longer period." "Project teams that do not have a full 12 months of monitored IT energy data, per the Energy Star requirements issued in June 2010, and effective July 2013, may still be eligible to meet EAp2 and EAc1, though an official Energy Star Rating cannot be earned. The project team is permitted to backwards project up to nine months of IT actual measured data to obtain an Energy Star score in Portfolio Manager, provided that the following conditions are met:\n
  1. 1. A minimum of three months (and including all available data) of metering has been provided that aligns with the minimum length of the permitted performance period AND
  2. 2. The monitored consumption is demonstrated to have little variability (with a standard deviation of 2kW or less) over the monitored period, AND
  3. 3. Additional documentation is provided to verify that the data center operations have not changed over the course of the year, such as a letter from the data center operator confirming that the quantity and type of servers, server applications, and data processes operating in the data center during the nine months where the IT loads for the data center were not monitored are consistent with those operating in the data center during the period where the IT loads were monitored.
Applicable internationally." "1920" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10220" "2012-07-01" "Existing Buildings" "For projects where process loads associated with manufacturing or industrial processes comprise more than 60% of the total project energy consumption, AND where the project is not eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating, AND where comparable building data is not available, it is very difficult to document minimum compliance with the EA Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Efficiency requirements." "The following will be allowed as an alternative compliance path for buildings where manufacturing or industrial processes comprise more than 60% of the total project energy consumption, AND where the project is not eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating:\n - Provide documentation showing that the process energy consumption associated with manufacturing or industrial processes comprise more than 60% of the total project energy consumption. This analysis should be based on submetered data or an engineering analysis.\n - Submeter the energy consumption for any portions of the building that could achieve an ENERGY STAR rating if they were stand-alone buildings (e.g. office, warehouse, etc.) separately from the remainder of the facility. Document that the ENERGY STAR score for this portion of the building meets the minimum requirements of EA Prerequisite 2.\n - Collect 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data for the facility. The 3 years of data must fall within 6 years of the beginning of the application performance period. \n - Collect a minimum of 1 year of current energy use data. The entire performance period must be included in the current year data if the performance period is less than one year. \n - Identify the most appropriate metric for determining the source energy use intensity for the remainder of the facility relative to the manufacturing process (i.e. Btu/pound or Btu/unit – if using a different metric, please submit a CIR to confirm whether the metric is acceptable). Determine the energy use intensity for each historical year of data, and for the current year of data based on this metric. \n - Normalize the production-based energy intensity metrics for other factors as applicable. Each year of historical data should be normalized based on the current year conditions. \n Examples include: \n -- Normalization for weather data if the process loads are directly tied to weather data (e.g. refrigeration)\n -- Normalization for process equipment that does not change in response to varying production capacities (e.g. burners that have the same energy output per hour of operation regardless of the pounds of product produced). A supplemental narrative should confirm that the production equipment does not have the capability to limit the energy output in response to production capacity, and any retrofit or add-ons to the equipment that would allow the energy output to be limited in response to production capacity has a simple payback period (based on energy cost savings) of ten years or longer.\n\n - Average the normalized production-based energy intensity for the previous three years of data.\n - Document a minimum 5%* improvement in the Current Annual Energy Use beyond the historical average energy use.\n One additional point beyond the minimum prerequisite requirements shall be awarded for every additional 2% improvement documented in the Current Annual Energy Use.\n\n **Updated 10/1/2013: Replace Bullet 2 with the following: Submeter all major energy sources serving any contiguous areas of the building that are 5,000 sf or greater, are one of the building types eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating, operate independently from the manufacturing areas such as supporting office or warehouse spaces, and are served by dedicated HVAC systems. These spaces must be entered into ENERGY STAR as if they were standalone buildings and demonstrate that they meet the minimum requirements of EA Prerequisite 2. Note that all spaces meeting the above criteria must be separately entered into ENERGY STAR and demonstrate EAp2 compliance. Energy sources that are calculated or measured to represent less than 5% of one of the ENERGY STAR eligible space’s energy use can forgo submetering if the entire energy source is included in the ENERGY STAR documentation (for example if domestic hot water is less than 5% of the office area’s energy use, it may forgo submetering if the entire building’s domestic hot water energy use is included in the ENERGY STAR rating for the office portion). " "10221" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10239" "2012-10-01" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Healthcare" "Many projects in Europe are connected to highly efficient district energy systems. However, the EAp2/EAc1 Option 2 guidance provided in the ""Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction"" (DESv2) document is not well-suited for the complex interconnected district energy systems with multiple fuel sources that are common in Europe. Many European countries already make use of the Primary Energy Factor (PEF) as a means of evaluating district energy performance and building energy performance. Is there an alternative compliance path available to document EAp2/EAc1 credit for the district energy system using the Primary Energy Factor in lieu of the DESv2 Option 2 compliance path?" "An alternative EAp2/EAc1 compliance path is available to document the energy performance for complex interconnected district energy systems in Europe using the Primary Energy Factor and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these systems. The Sweden Green Building Council developed an approved method, ""Treatment of European District Energy Systems in LEED"" (available November 1, 2012), which may be used in lieu of EAp2 Option 2 of the ""Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction"" guidance. This compliance path is currently available for projects located in Europe only. \n \nNote: The ""Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction"" (DESv2) is Optional Guidance for LEED 2009 projects. However, project teams that use the guidance must apply all relevant portions of the guidance. The alternative compliance path outlined in the ""Treatment of European District Energy Systems in LEED"" may only be used to replace Option 2 of the EAp2/EAc1 Energy Modeling Path defined in the DES v2 guidance. Project teams that opt to use the ""Treatment of European District Energy Systems in LEED"" method must comply with all other applicable requirements of the DES v2 guidance such as those defined for EA Credit 3, EA Credit 4, EA Credit 5, etc.\n \nApplicable Internationally; only for projects located in the Europe region. " "10241, 10243" "Treatment of Scandinavian District Energy Systems in LEED" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10259" "2013-01-01" "Existing Buildings" "Many multifamily buildings are not master-metered for water, electric, and/or gas. It is often prohibitively difficult to get utility data from utility companies, and many residential occupants are uncomfortable providing their utility data. This poses a challenge to meeting the requirement to collect 100% of utility data for a building. Will USGBC allow sampling of utilities from the residential units? " "For residential projects with non-master metered utilities, USGBC is allowing them to collect a statistically significant sampling of utility data from the residential unit space. Projects should follow USGBC\'s Residential Utility Sampling Protocols. Applicable Internationally." "10260" "EB: O&M Residential Utility Sampling Protocol" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1797" "2007-06-15" "Existing Buildings" "We propose to satisfy this prerequisite requirement for an elementary school project utilizing the streamlined procedure provided in the LEED-EB Reference Guide. This would include developing and documenting a building energy baseline from historical energy use data for the existing school, and then documenting a reduction in annual energy use during the performance period of 10% or greater from the building energy use performance baseline. Additional Background: The original school was constructed in 1964. A design for renovation and additions was done in the late 1990\'s, based on the code requirements of the 1993 BOCA Building Code and associated energy code. Subsequent revisions of the ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard (1999, 2001 and 2004) have provided significant improvement in energy performance requirements. Taking these factors into consideration, the building energy performance for projects designed prior to implementation of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 does not compare as favorably with buildings constructed to these updated standards. The building energy requirements enforced at the time of design also make it more difficult to achieve an ENERGY STAR Rating of at least 60. The proposed alternative of achieving a 10% or greater energy savings for a 78,000 square foot school could potentially result in reduced CO2 emissions of 200,000 lbs/year, and provide a significant environmental benefit. Is it acceptable to meet the Minimum Energy Performance Prerequisite by documenting a reduction in annual energy use during the performance period of 10% or greater from the building energy use performance baseline for projects designed prior to implementation of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 Energy Standard for Buildings?" "The proposed approach (use of the alternative compliance method) is not appropriate for this project. In the absence of highly problematic mitigating circumstances, building types which are adequately encompassed by the Energy Star Portfolio Manager Tool must use that tool to assess compliance with EA Prerequisite 2. The alternative compliance method is to be used only when the building type ensures (as confirmed by Energy Star) that the Portfolio Manager Tool is inappropriate for the particular application at hand. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1874" "2007-09-10" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "The SRA Arlington Consolidation design development phase started in February of 2005. The owner asked that the project be designed per the LEED-CI criteria and an early analysis of the project checklist indicated a possible Silver Certification. The LEED-CI checklist was discussed at our weekly project meetings from February 2005 until May 2005, when our CD\'s were Issued for Bid on 5/13/2005. In February 2005, the current LEED-CI checklist was Version 2, which referenced the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 criteria. We continued to review the LEED-CI criteria, and completed our CD\'s as stated above utilizing the 2001 criteria. Up unitl this time, we anticipated a paper submittal to USGBC. The LEED Online website was introduced at GreenBuild in Atlanta in November 2005, however USGBC wrestled with numerous technical challenges and did not go live until the Spring of 2006. (We know this because we attempted several times to access the website to begin entering our data the early part of 2006.) The project was bid and then sat dormant until the base building progressed to a point when the interiors portion of the work could start, per the lease, in January 2006. Also, in late summer/early fall 2005 there was significant concern on the part of the interiors team that the base building was not hitting critical milestone dates, thus providing the tenant an escape clause included in the lease - effectively cancelling the construction of interiors portion of the project. Due to these delays and uncertainty, the project was not registered with USGBC until 1/26/2006. We are asking for relief or a variance from the USGBC regarding the ASHRAE 90.1 standard, specifically that due to the timing of our design phase and CD\'s (5/13/05) versus the release of LEED-CI Version 2 on 5/25/05 that we be allowed to use ASHRAE 90.1 - 2001 criteria and not ASHRAE 90.1 - 2004. Obviously, without this prerequisite we will not be able to continue completing the submittal for this project." "Projects must adhere to the requirements of the version in effect at the time of the project\'s registration. No exceptions can be made. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1920" "2007-10-15" "Existing Buildings" "Our 151,744 square foot building has a 9,782 square foot computer data center. The data is not a typical single office building small data center; it supports the company\'s local headquarters four-building campus as well as national needs, and thus has significant power requirements. Based on metering data obtained over the last month, the data center is using approximately 26watts per square foot. This figure includes power used by the server equipment as well as server room air conditioning equipment. As a comparison, in a benchmarking study performed by Lawrence Berkley National Labs , the minimum power densities for data centers were 8-10 watts per square foot and average power densities were 25 watts per square foot. Our problem is that the Energy Star Portfolio Manager program does not adequately account for the data center power use. Consequently, our Energy Star score across the building is quite low since the data center power density is not correctly represented. We have installed a sub-meter on the data center to accurately capture the energy used by the data center and would like to pull the data center out of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager scoring system. Energy Star will allow you to pull out the square footage of the data center and the total energy used by the data center for Energy Star Certification if you have 12 months of actual metering data. This is allowed so that an accurate picture of the energy use of the office building can be seen without being skewed by the energy use of a data center. Our hurdle is the sub-meter was installed in August so we will have three months worth of sub-metering data (not 12). We are highly committed to submitting for certification by the end of the year. This facility has been working extremely hard and is on track to submit for Gold certification and potentially Platinum by 12/31/07. However, we need to be able to pull the data center out in order to meet the Energy Star Score prerequisite requirements. The facility is aggressively targeting energy conservation projects to increase the score as well. We plan on using the 3 full months of metered data to estimate the remaining 9 months energy use, and then use this number to estimate the total energy use for the data center over the 12 month period as required by Energy Star. In other words, from the 3 months of gathered data, a Professional Engineer (mechanical) will calculate the average monthly use and apply that figure to each of the nine months for which we do not have separate metering data. The 3 months of our performance period occur during late summer (mid-August) and early winter (mid-December), which will give us a good picture of energy use during typical heating and cooling seasons. By using this method, we will be able to obtain a reasonable estimate of annual energy use for the data center. We would like to know if the USGBC will accept an energy star score that is calculated using this method. Worthy of note, we have also looked into the other methods of identifying your Energy Star score discussed in the reference guide, but since this is a typical office building (outside of the data center), none of those options apply." "LEED-EB v2.0 EA p2 and c1 recommend using the US EPA\'s Energy Star Benchmarking Tool. The U.S. EPA Energy Star program does permit exceptions for facilities such as described above where the data center is less than 10% of the total floor spaces, but a much larger percent of the energy use. When there are high energy loads associated with computer data centers it is acceptable to install sub-meters to capture the data center energy use. As correctly stated, the U.S EPA requires 12 months of data to officially obtain an Energy Star rating. However, for the purposes of meeting EA prerequisite 2 and EA credit 1 by obtaining a score using the Portfolio Manager Tool, the USGBC allows the extrapolation of annual data from a minimum of 3 months of data for initial LEED-EB applications. Three months aligns with the minimum length of the permitted performance period. The sub-metering should be a continual metering of the energy use for the piece of the building of interest, in order to quantify the total energy consumption for the period of interested. The sub-meter does not need to be a utility-installed meter. Applicable Internationally. " "2478, 2531, 10125" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1949" "2008-02-04" "Existing Buildings" "Our project covers multiple buildings with different space types including offices, classrooms, labs, and cleanrooms. Labs and cleanrooms can be very energy intensive due to large outside air requirements and filtration efficiencies not to mention the electrical energy consumed by process tools and the natural gas consumption required by process systems. Some of these buildings have Class 1 rated cleanrooms, process tool energy consumption levels that make up 50% or more of the total EUI (Energy Use Index) and clean room and lab spaces that constitute the majority of the square footage of the building. In an attempt to satisfy LEED EB version 2.0 EAp2 requirements, we have reviewed all the options possible and have found that none of them are well suited for buildings with labs and cleanrooms. Currently, labs and cleanrooms are not one of the space types available within the Energy Star" "It would not be acceptable to subtract the process energy consumption associated with labs and cleanrooms from the total building energy consumption for lab and cleanroom spaces that make up more then 15% of the building floor area. LEED-EB EAp2 is based on the underlying premise of the EnergyStar Portfolio Manager Tool of rating your entire building against other likewise building types and regional areas along a bell curve. Both EnergyStar Portfolio and LEED-EB EAp2 allow an exception to rating the entire building. This exemption addresses buildings that operate for one main purpose such as office space yet contain a very energy intensive function that takes up only a small percent of the total building floor space. The reasoning being that these buildings would be unfairly penalized when compared to other similar building types. One EnergyStar Portfolio example of this exemption is for facilities where a data center is less than 10% of the total floor space, but a much larger percent of the energy use. In these situations, it is acceptable to sub-meter all of the energy use for the data center and subtract the data center floor space and energy use from the numbers in Portfolio Manager. Effectively, this approach isolates and rates the Office portion of the building. This approach requires that you install sub-meters to capture the total annual energy use of the data center alone. If you are able to install sub-meters and subtract out this data center energy use, then you will be able to obtain a more accurate rating for your office. Similarly, another example is the LEED-EB EAp2 CIR ruling dated 4/23/07 that allows buildings to exclude the energy usage used by the labs and cleanrooms from the LEED scope by allowing the subtraction of energy consumption associated with labs and cleanrooms from the total building energy consumption as long as the lab and cleanroom spaces are sub-metered and do not make up more than 15% of the building floor area. The described situation in the submitted Credit Interpretation Request is different. In situations where a building has energy intensive cleanroom and lab spaces that constitute the majority of the square footage of the building, laboratory activities are the main building function, not office space. These buildings should only be compared to other laboratory buildings of similar function and regional area and should not be compared to other building types such as office space. Past LEED-EB certified laboratory buildings have earned EAp2 through the EAp2 Alternative Path: Option B Approach. This approach required an additional but not overly burdensome effort on the Applicant\'s parts to find the minimum three comparable buildings for the energy use calculations. The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys (CBECS) also does contain data for lab buildings in their \'Other\' category. It is possible that the U.S DOE EIA CBECs program contains subset categories in their database under the Lab Building Category that could be obtained by CBECS program representatives for buildings with both labs and cleanrooms. An alternative approach for your laboratory building would be to use the Energy Benchmarking Tool available through Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21), which is a resource co-sponsored by the EPA and DOE for the design, construction, and operation of laboratories. The Energy Benchmarking Tool can be found here: http://www.labs21century.gov/toolkit/benchmarking.htm. Using the metrics provided by the tool, calculate your project\'s percent reduction in energy use compared to the benchmark. You can then calculate the corresponding number of LEED points." "2505, 2623, 5116, 5174, 5378, 100000676, 100000688, 2405" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2405" "2009-02-09" "Existing Buildings" "The project focuses on the headquarter building of the local (i.e. provincial in this case) electrical utility. That building is considered a typical office building. As such, we ran the building into the Portfolio Manager of Energy Star, per LEED-EB v2.0 EAp2/EAc1. We were surprised to see a rating of " "LEED-EB v2.0 recognizes the U.S. EPA\'s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool as the default standard tool for meeting the requirements for LEED-EB EAp2 and EAc1. As such, all building types that are addressed by the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool must use this compliance path option to fulfill EAp2 requirements. At the same time the USGBC\'s LEED-EB program has been continuously working with the ENERGY STAR program on an ongoing basis to address discrepancies between the LEED-EB rating system requirements and the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool. In the short term, for unique building situations, the LEED-EB program will defer to the ENERGY STAR\'s building certification program regarding applicable use of its Portfolio Tool. Project Teams may work with the ENERGY STAR program to make adjustments to its Portfolio Tool data inputs and resulting building score based on the three areas of concern discussed above and these adjustments, if approved in writing by the ENERGY STAR Program, will be recognized by the LEED-EB v2.0 program. Based on the situation described above, the Applicant must use the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool to meet the requirements of EAp2 unless the ENERGY STAR Program agrees that the building should be considered ""not covered by Energy Star"" and thus eligible for the alternative calculations. The LEED-EB v2.0 program will also recognize all building scores based on building data inputs approved by the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool Program. Applicable Internationally. " "1949, 2505, 2623, 5116, 5174, 5378, 100000676, 100000688" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2421" "2009-02-20" "Existing Buildings" "Our project is an office building in downtown Toronto, Ontario. The building owners made the decision to connect to a community chilled water loop sourced from a nearby deep lake which provides naturally cooled water. This essentially eliminates the need (both on-site and at source) for a chiller and any related energy demands which would be needed. We have confirmed with Energy Star that ""Portfolio Manager does not have a specific method of accepting cooling energy supplied by a non-chiller driven chilled water loop."" Currently, we are required to input our deep lake cooling energy into Energy Star as district cooling which gives us the option of electric or gas fired, absorption chillers at the central cooling plant. Both of these options assume coefficients of performance much below that of our plant and as a result out project is being penalized. Following from our discussions, we understand that Energy Star will be considering future revisions of their tool to better address deep lake cooling, but no option exists now. Energy Star\'s states that ""An individual building does not receive either a bonus or a penalty based on the efficiency of its utility provider"" because ""individual buildings do not have control over the available power supply options in their geographic area"" [ENERGY STAR Performance Ratings: Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use]. We understand this in the context of a single energy source such as electricity. However, where building owners do have control, such as a choosing between natural gas heating and electric heating, buildings are rewarded under Energy Star for selecting the lower impact energy source, natural gas, (assuming a reasonable conversion efficiency) because of its lower source-site energy ratio. In the case of deep lake cooling, building owners are decisively choosing their source of cooling to reduce environmental impacts (and not for economic consideration as lake-cooled community water loop cooling is typically more costly per ton-hr than cooling from a conventional chiller). Since the cooling energy being delivered is produced without electric chillers, we propose that we input into energy star the actual electricity used in pumping the chilled water to our site instead of the tons of chilled water received. This will be done by using the utility\'s stated efficiency (in kW/ton) and the building\'s consumption, via the equation: Electricity cooling [kWh] = Efficiency utility [kW/ton] x Consumption Building [ton-hrs] Please confirm that, since deep lake cooling is not mechanically derived, when calculating an EPA Energy Star rating for the building the cooling energy provided to a building by this means can be accounted for by inputting the electricity used by the utility to generate and distribute the cooling consumed." "All building types that are addressed by the U.S. EPA\'s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool must use this compliance path option to fulfill EAp2 requirements. For unique building situations, the LEED-EB program will defer to the ENERGY STAR\'s building certification program regarding applicable use of its Portfolio Tool. The Project Team is encouraged to work with the ENERGY STAR program to make adjustments to its Portfolio Tool data inputs and resulting building score based on the concerns discussed above and these adjustments, if approved in writing by the ENERGY STAR Program, will be recognized by the LEED-EB v2.0 program. Based on the situation described above, the Applicant must use the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool to meet the requirements of EAp2 unless the ENERGY STAR Program agrees that the building should be considered ""not covered by Energy Star"" and thus eligible for the alternative calculations. The LEED-EB v2.0 program will also recognize all building scores based on building data inputs approved by the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool Program. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2466" "2009-05-06" "Existing Buildings" "Energy Star rating requirements for multiple buildings on a campus site. The project team is currently evaluating and pursuing LEED certification for multiple similar occupancy buildings (dormitory/apartments) on a higher education campus as one package. The complex consists of four dormitory/apartment buildings with identical occupancy and usage characteristics, one recreational building, two shared parking garages, and one common central plant that includes chillers, pumps, cooling tower, boilers, domestic water pumps, domestic hot water heaters, and fire protection. There are six electric meters; one for each building and one for each chiller. The electricity associated with the central plant equipment, with exception to the chillers, is metered at one of the building meters. Each chiller has its own electric meter. There is one gas meter which serves the two central plant boilers and six domestic water heaters. All five buildings and two parking garages operate as one facility on the 8 acre site, serving the University. The buildings are approximately 800,000sf and serve the housing needs of over 2,000 students. The University has other campus housing, located remotely from this site, serving another 8,000 students. Per the USGBC two page document ""LEED and Higher Education"", a whole campus can be LEED certified. This document also offers the Portfolio Program as a ""volume LEED certification process"" which ""will allow for streamlining of certification for multiple buildings on one campus."" We interpret this to allow us to model the four buildings as one \'facility\' using the Portfolio Manager Tool. We have entered the data for each of the buildings and parking garages associated with the campus into the Portfolio Manager as one facility since the entire campus has one common central plant. Since the entire campus of dormitory/apartment buildings is pursuing LEED EB certification under the O& M rating system as one facility and not as individual buildings, we believe that the method listed above is appropriate for determining overall operating energy efficiency of the campus (facility). Please advise as to whether you agree with our approach for this evaluation." "Multiple buildings cannot be benchmarked as a single facility to demonstrate compliance with EA Prerequisite 2 or EA Credit 1. The LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-campus Building Projects (October 2005) establishes that each building in a project must independently meet the requirements of the perquisite. Further, Energy Star prohibits benchmarking a campus or plaza as a building as noted in the 2008 Professional Engineer\'s Guide to the Energy Star Label for Commercial Buildings; only single structures are eligible. Please note that the ""LEED and Higher Education"" document is intended to provide a brief overview of how campus projects might pursue LEED and does not provide technical detail sufficient to guide projects in approaching specific credits and prerequisites.\n\nUpdate April 15, 2011: Please note that all 2009 projects in multiple building situations must follow the 2010 Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects, located here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7987. 2009 project teams should check this document for up to date guidance on all multiple building issues. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2478" "2009-02-27" "Existing Buildings" "We are planning to submit our office building for LEED O&M certification. Our 148,331 square foot building has a 531 square foot computer data center. The data center has a high energy use intensity, using approximately 154 watts per square foot, based on sub metering data collected over the last 12 months. The Energy Star Portfolio Manager program does not adequately account for the data center power use. Excluding the data center significantly reduces our Energy Star score across the building since the data center power density is not accurately represented by Portfolio Manager. The data center has a dedicated sub-meter to accurately capture and monitor the energy used. We would like to pull the data center out of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager scoring system. Energy Star will allow us to pull out the square footage of the data center and the total energy used by the data center for Energy Star Certification if we have 12 months of actual metering data and the data center area accounts for less than 10% of the total area. This facility meets both criteria. Please confirm that this approach to demonstrating compliance with LEED O&M EA Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1 is acceptable to USGBC." "The proposed approach to demonstrating compliance with LEED-EB O&M EA prerequisite 2 and EA credit 1 would be acceptable to USGBC. The exempted high intensity building area must account for less than 10% of the total building space. Secondly, the sub-metering should be a continual metering of the energy use for at least 12 months for the piece of the building of interest, in order to quantify the total energy consumption for the period of interest. The sub-meter does not need to be a utility-installed meter. ***Please note this CIR has been filed under LEED-EB O&M, under EAp2 and EAc1 - the guidance outlined above is intended for that rating system.*** Applicable Internationally. " "1920, 2531" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2506" "2009-03-11" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "We have 108 heat pump PTAC\'s that meet the efficiency requirements of EA prerequisite 2 credit. Due to application requirements, we need to also have 2 vertical heat pump PTAC units. The 2 vertical heat pump PTAC units do not meet the efficiency requirements of EA prerequisite 2 credit. Efficiencies are below: 108 units at EER of 12.8, EA prerequisite 2 requires 11.3 2 units at EER of 9.6, EA prerequisite 2 requires 11.3 The 2 units that don\'t meet the efficiency requirement are similar in capacity to the other 108 units. These units need to be ducted however and they do not offer a ducted unit with the high efficiency option. These units were added to meet building code needs. With only 2 out of 110 total units not meeting efficiency requirements, the average efficiency of the 110 units (all similar in capacity) easily exceeds the minimum requirements. Is it okay to have these 2 units out of 110 total?" "The project team has furnished further details explaining that in trying to meet building code requirements to provide heating and cooling to the corridors with outside air, and due to the peculiar configuration of the building, it was unable to use minimum efficiency ducted PTACs for 2% of the building\'s cooling capacity for two corridors of the building. It also states that ducted PTACs were not available in a higher efficiency option. Per LEED-CI Reference Guide, all equipment components must meet the mandatory, minimum efficiency requirements as listed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 Tables 6.8.1A-G. Utilizing the mean efficiency of all equipment in a system is not listed as an acceptable method of satisfying this requirement in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. The PTACs (even those that are ducted) must be rated at the rating conditions specified in ARI 310/380 and 95" "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2531" "2009-03-02" "Existing Buildings" "We are planning to submit our office building for LEED O&M certification. Our 148,331 square foot building has a 531 square foot computer data center. The data center has a high energy use intensity, using approximately 154 watts per square foot, based on sub metering data collected over the last 12 months. The Energy Star Portfolio Manager program does not adequately account for the data center power use. Excluding the data center significantly reduces our Energy Star score across the building since the data center power density is not accurately represented by Portfolio Manager. The data center has a dedicated sub-meter to accurately capture and monitor the energy used. We would like to pull the data center out of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager scoring system. Energy Star will allow us to pull out the square footage of the data center and the total energy used by the data center for Energy Star Certification if we have 12 months of actual metering data and the data center area accounts for less than 10% of the total area. This facility meets both criteria. Please confirm that this approach to demonstrating compliance with LEED O&M EA Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1 is acceptable to USGBC." "The proposed approach to demonstrating compliance with LEED-EB O&M EA prerequisite 2 and EA credit 1 would be acceptable to USGBC. The exempted high intensity building area must account for less than 10% of the total building space. Secondly, the sub-metering should be a continual metering of the energy use for at least 12 months for the piece of the building of interest, in order to quantify the total energy consumption for the period of interest. The sub-meter does not need to be a utility-installed meter. Applicable Internationally. " "1920, 2478" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2540" "2009-04-14" "Existing Buildings" "Our project building is a 5,900 square foot Chapel located on a University campus. It has an unique schedule, use, and amenities, including an indoor botanical garden and koi pond. The project team has attempted to create an energy use baseline for the building in Portfolio Manager; however, the Chapel does not match a classifiable space type. Research efforts to find a comparable building with a similar layout, schedule, use, and amenities, have proven difficult. For these reasons, the project must submit under Option C2 for Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2. Under this path, the project building collects 3 years of historical energy use data, creates an average energy use index baseline, and compares it to the average energy use from the past 12 months that ends with the conclusion of the performance period. The Chapel has a separate meter for each of the following: electricity, steam, chilled water, and water. The Chapel is connected to a central campus steam plant and a central chilled water plant for heating and cooling, respectively. The Chilled Water Plant is actively used during winter months, and is monitored by a third party engineering firm, which manages a server to trend individual building usage data. This past winter, the Chilled Water Data server crashed, and the historic chilled water usage for each building on campus was lost, including the chilled water data for the Chapel. The server has been repaired and data will be collected from February 2009 through the end of the performance period, May 2009. According to a past credit interpretation request (CIR) for EA prerequisite 2 from September 8th, 2008, a building must report, ""A minimum of three months of metered performance period energy consumption data at the individual building level."" The length of time for reporting the chilled water data will be four months in duration so the project will meet the precedent set in that CIR. The second portion of submittal path C2 is to create a historical energy use baseline for the project site. Unfortunately, as a result of the server crash, all historical chilled water data has been lost. The project team proposes meeting the requirements of EA Prerequisite 1 as follows: 1. The project team will track chilled water consumption from February 2009 through May 2009 and record the number of cooling degree days during that time period. 2. The team will then use the ratio of chilled water usage to the number of cooling degree days within these four months to extrapolate chilled water usage for the performance period calendar year. 3. The project team will assume the same chilled water consumption in each year of the historical baseline, effectively not taking credit for any of the recent energy conservations measures that will reduce chilled water usage in the most recent year. This proposed path will take no credit for chilled water savings, but allow us to demonstrate a 20% savings through a reduction in EUI from electricity and steam use. We appreciate any feedback on our proposed approach to creating an energy use baseline in this building where one set of utility data has been irretrievably lost and welcome alternative suggestions." "The CIR referenced from September 8th, 2008 was filed under LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0, which has less stringent energy benchmarking data requirements than LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance v2008. For LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance v2008 projects, the LEED performance period for EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1 must be 12 consecutive months in duration (extrapolation of 3 months of data is generally disallowed). Given the extenuating circumstances, the project team may collect less than 12 months of data for chilled water only provided the following conditions are met (all other energy types must include 12 months of data): 1. Chilled water data must be collected for a performance period of at least 6 months 2. The 6 months for which chilled water data is collected must include the 4 months of the year with the highest number of cooling degree days, based on historic averages for the project\'s location 3. The 6 months for which chilled water data is collected must fall within the same 12-month period during which performance period data is collected for all other energy types 4. For the remaining 6 months of the energy performance period, chilled water data must be estimated based on cooling degree data for that specific time period so that a full 12 months of data for all energy types is accounted for. Upon establishing 12 months of data for all energy types for the performance period, use the Energy Star Portfolio Manager Tool to develop a weather normalized source EUI for both total energy consumption and just chilled water consumption (as described in the Option B and C Calculator for EA Credit 1 and the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance Reference Guide). For each historical year, add the chilled water-only value to the Weather Normalized Source EUI generated by Portfolio Manager for all other energy consumed during that year to complete Section V of the Option C Tab in the Option B and C Calculator for EA Credit 1). This approach is similar to that proposed in Step 3, but accounts for converting usage data into the weather-normalized Source EUI value that benchmarking is based upon. To document the approach, provide transparent data showing that each of the conditions above is met and that protocol for integrating chilled water data into historic years was followed. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2623" "2009-07-20" "Existing Buildings" "The Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems Headquarters (IDS HQ), located in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, is a 600,000 square foot multi-use facility primarily focused on research and development. It is a hybrid complex with three interlinked buildings connected by conditioned space, consisting of server rooms, dry laboratories, and office space. Raytheon IDS is a defense contractor and the majority of the work performed at IDS HQ is engineering work, primarily software development and equipment testing. Our laboratories are dry laboratories, used for engineering and prototype development of electrical test equipment. In addition, our complex has multiple server rooms of various sizes due to customer requirements and contracts that dictate compartmentalized areas. Our team has evaluated our options for benchmarking energy use under EA Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1. The LEED system provides us with three options. Option A does not apply to this facility because our laboratory space is greater than 10% and we are not eligible to receive a rating in Portfolio Manager. Option B is also not viable for this facility, since Portfolio Manager does not provide a national average for laboratories. Option C also requires some way of benchmarking our facility\'s performance. On February 4, 2008, the USGBC issued a credit interpretation ruling indicating that the Labs21 benchmarking tool may be used for benchmarking laboratories that are pursing LEED for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance certification, which states in part: ""An alternative approach for your laboratory building would be to use the Energy Benchmarking Tool available through Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21), which is a resource co-sponsored by the EPA and DOE for the design, construction, and operation of laboratories."" The Labs21 tool will allow us to input data on our facility and compare it to other buildings in the database, using whole building metrics (e.g. total kBTU/sf-yr) as well as system level metrics (e.g. ventilation system W/cfm). The tool also allows us to filter the data set to obtain an appropriate peer group based on four parameters: climate zone, lab type, lab area ratio, and occupancy hours to gain the most comparable data set available for benchmarking. However, unlike the Energy Star Portfolio Manager tool, the Labs21 tool does not provide a 1-100 rating which can directly be used to determine points for EA credit 1. We are proposing to use the following approach outlined in the document prepared by Labs21, titled ""Guidance on Using the Labs21 Benchmarking Tool for LEED-EB"" to document our energy consumption for EA Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1. Step 1: Retrieve benchmarking data for Total Building kBTU/sf, applying filters as appropriate Step 2: Calculate average value of Total Building kBTU/sf and percentage better than average for the subject building Step 3: Determine the number of points based on percentage better than the average, using the same criteria as that provided for option B. Raytheon is an ENERGY STAR Partner and is committed to reducing energy in our facilities, including annual energy consumption reduction goals. Our only hurdle is in finding the appropriate benchmarking tool to analyze our energy consumption. Raytheon has used the Labs21 benchmarking tool at comparable research and development facilities in the northeast to prioritize and identify energy conservation opportunities and we believe it is an appropriate tool for this facility as well. Please confirm that this approach to demonstrating compliance with EA Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1 is acceptable to the USGBC. If acceptable, please confirm whether the annual energy consumption should be based on the most recent 12 months of data or if it should be calculated using a three year average." "The project team must use the Option B methodology to benchmark the project building, which can accommodate benchmarking this project building based on the description of the space provided, unless another basis exists for deviating from that approach. The presumption that laboratory facilities are not accommodated under Option B is incorrect, as this space type is generally handled through this path. The ""EBOM_EAc1_Option_BC_Calculator_v2.xls"" is available to download from the USGBC web site\'s Registered Project Tools Page, and also can be downloaded from the EAc1 credit page within LEED Online. This tool provides national average source data specific to laboratory spaces to facilitate benchmarking through the Option B methodology, and is not limited to the same space type constrictions as Portfolio Manager. In the event that the team has a legitimate reason why Option B benchmarking does not accurately reflect the nature of spaces and usages within the building, Option C must be followed. The Option C portion of the aforementioned calculator allows teams to enter historic energy consumption data as well as comparable building energy consumption data (such as that found in the Labs21 database), and automatically calculates the percentile points above the national average. To pursue Option C, the project team would need to: 1) Establish that Option B, the normal mechanism for laboratory benchmarking, is not viable because of unique building characteristics of the project building. 2) Assemble both historic project building energy consumption data and data from at least three comparable buildings (the Labs21 database can be used to identify comparable buildings) 3) Use the ""EBOM_EAc1_Option_BC_Calculator_v2.xls"" to calculate the percentile points above the national average. Please note that the referenced CIR pertains to LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0, and therefore is not reflective of the tools and options subsequently created under the newer Rating System, LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance. Applicable Internationally." "1949, 2405, 2505, 5116, 5174, 5378, 100000688, 100000676" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5184" "2009-02-20" "Existing Buildings" "A food manufacturing company has a total of (29) active manufacturing plants across North America. All sites currently measure BTU/Lb of product to identify energy use trends. One of our requests is to confirm the use of this ratio as our basis for indicating the energy use reduction at the individual sites. We cite a CIR dated 4/23/2008 that approved the BTU/lb of product for an oat by-product manufacturing process. We also request ruling on our approach for EA prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1 under the LEED-EBv2.0 rating system. The specific items addressed in this CIR are(1) site specific energy use reduction and (2) a corporate baseline energy use reduction. Although the exact product mix and volume of snacks at each site varies, the overall energy use baseline created by combining 29 sites constitutes a viable ""corporate"" baseline to reference against similar sites. The reference guide details comparing a site to three similar sites, therefore we feel 29 would offer a further improved ""corporate"" baseline. For each site, energy use will be compared either against itself [site baseline] or against the company as a whole [corporate baseline]. Since manufacturing facilities are currently not addressed by EnergyStar, we have taken the alternative approach to determine our energy use reductions. Our proposed procedure is as follows: 1. Determine Historical Average energy use ratio - information is collected from a Resource Conservation [RC] Scorecard that records on a weekly basis all utility consumption. Information is provided for Natural Gas and Electricity in btu and kWh. Production volume is also recorded at the same frequency to calculate the btu/lb. ratio. This data is collected for each site and is also rolled up into an overall corporate energy use ratio for all (29) active manufacturing sites. 2. Determine Performance Period Energy use ratio - data is collected as part of the company\'s ongoing energy use monitoring and continuously updated during the performance period in the Energy Scorecard Summary. We propose to have a three (3) month performance period and extrapolate the full year energy use by calculating part year historical energy use ratios. The annualized energy use data will be included as part of the final LEED Submission. 3. Determine the Reduction in Site Energy Use Relative to Historical Average Baselines - [A] Site Specific or [B] Corporate Wide. Per the alternative method described in the LEED EBv2 reference guide, the baselines are determined by averaging the worst consecutive three year period within the past six years prior to the start of the performance period. The annual % reduction for energy use for the performance period will be determined by dividing the performance period btu/lb by the [A] site specific baseline btu/lb or the [B] corporate baseline btu/lb per the per eq. 1 on page 185 of the reference guide. In using the site-specific baseline option [A], the project should be eligible for 5 possible credit points for EA credit 1. Using the corporate baseline option [B], the project should be eligible for 10 possible credit points for EA credit 1. We feel this is consistent with the ""complete procedure"" described in the LEED-EBv2.0 reference guide pages 184-185." "The project team is proposing to use Btu/lb of product produced as a basis for determining energy use intensity at a manufacturing site. This would be an acceptable method of determining the EUI for use in the required calculations for EAp2 and EAc1. The outlined approach of earning points under EAc1 Option B by comparing Btu/lb product between manufacturing buildings within the portfolio is also acceptable, provided that: 1. Individual buildings are compared to buildings in similar climate zones instead of the portfolio as a whole. 2. All buildings being compared are normalized for size or any other factors that could have a significant impact on energy use intensity. 3. All buildings being compared employ similar manufacturing processes and similar building types. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5240" "2009-07-31" "Existing Buildings" "Our EB O&M project is an academic department building on a university campus with activity areas for instruction and student/faculty work. Since this building type is not eligible for an Energy Star performance rating, our project must utilize the EAc1 Options B&C Calculator (v2) workbook to assess its performance relative to like buildings using data from the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). The workbook requires entries of activity types but it does not include the ""Other - Education - College/University (Campus-Level)"" activity type available in Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Email correspondence with leedinfo@usgbc.org confirmed this as an intentional omission and noted the college/university buildings should be divided into the activity types available in the workbook. We interpret the appropriate activity area classification for our entire project to be ""All Other - not classified"" after determining the ""Education- general"" and ""Office"" activity types to be inappropriate for our instructional spaces and work spaces respectively. To support our determinations, here are two statements about the ""Education- general"" activity area and one about the ""Office"" activity area. Education Statement #1 - The underlying CBECS "" Education"" building data is not representative of college/university instructional spaces. The Department of Energy published CBECS national average source energy use intensity (EUI) of Education buildings is 170 kBtu/sf (http://www.EnergyStar.gov/ia/business/tools_resources/new_bldg_design/2003_CBECSPerformanceTargetsTable.pdf). The educational buildings in the survey have been subcategorized as 70% K-12, 8% College/University, 10% Preschool/Daycare, and 12% Other Education (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/education/education.html#Subcats). The education building data is so dominated by K-12 schools that the average can only be considered representative of K-12 schools. The composite education value of 170 kBtu/sf is nearly identical to the national average source EUI for K-12 schools of 169 kBtu/sf, as reported in the workbook. Considering the numerous energy intensity related differences between K-12 schools and college/university instructional spaces and the published national average source EUI for ""Education - College/University (Campus-Level)"" buildings at 280 kBtu/sf further confirms that the broad ""Education"" data in CBECS is not a reasonable benchmark for college/university instructional space. Education Statement #2 - The underlying CBECS ""Education"" building data is not utilized in the workbook. Specifically the ""Education- general"" activity type has an Adjusted National Average Source EUI of 115 kBtu/sf instead of the CBECS published National Average Source EUI value for ""Education"" of 170 kBtu/sf. Email correspondence with leedinfo@usgbc.org confirmed the change to this and two other activity types as intended to ""keep the expected level of EAc1 points for these types consistent with expected level for other building activities"". The workbook utilizes a single curve for all activity types to determine percentile performance based on the percentage of the national average source EUI for each activity type. Based on that curve, the adjustment to the national average moves the maximum source energy use intensity for ""Education - general"" activity areas to earn the required minimum 2 EAc1 points from 132 kBtu/sf to 89.2 kBtu/sf. Neither the decision to adjust the average rather than the curve nor the amount of adjustment has been justified. The expectation of points can only be made based on an expectation of the distribution profile and if that exists it should be used to develop an activity type specific percentile performance curve. Office Statement - The ""Office"" activity area type in this workbook is inappropriate for our college/university student/faculty workspaces in the same manner as Education Statement #1 above. Information on the CBECS building types published at (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/building_types.html) shows that buildings that were primarily classroom were considered ""Education"" buildings and therefore student/faculty workspaces within education buildings were not aggregated into the ""Office"" activity type data. We concur with the reference guide as its anticipates improvements to energy performance rating procedures. We look forward to refinement in this calculator workbook and industry wide for activity area types, percentile performance distributions, and normalizations of activity area values for climate, operating hours, etc. Assuming revisions to the calculator workbook will not be made in the very near term, we request confirmation that our entire project should be considered ""All Other - not classified""." "The project team requests an alternative path for benchmarking a departmental building on a university campus. In general, project teams for university buildings should select types based on the primary, actual activities in the building (e.g., office, lab, food service, etc.). If a building is primarily used for classroom space, a project team may perform benchmarking according to either of the approaches below. The team must justify that the primary use of the building is as instructional space. Approach 1. Classify University Classroom Buildings as ""Education K-12 School"" via Option B Approach 2. Classify University Classroom Buildings as ""Other - Not Classified"" via Option C If the Other - Not Classified approach is chosen, the team must also provide historical data for the project building to define the LEED baseline (via Section 5 of the Option C calculator). The project team can also choose to incorporate data from comparable buildings. Use of the streamlined version of Option C is not allowable. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5336" "2009-02-03" "Existing Buildings" "Page 17 of the Existing Buildings Reference guide indicates that an application to USGBC must be filed within 90 days following the Performance Period for the building. This particular building did not meet the criteria of the Energy Star Rating system and required energy conservation measures to be implemented. The Alternative method of scoring utilizing reduction of energy which will be extrapolated over 12 months must also be utilized. Our performance period is 3 months and energy savings have been realized. However, this Building receives electricity from New York Power Authority as part of a multi building contract and actual utility bills for the performance period are not available until approximately 75 to 90 days after the utility monthly billing period. We need the monthly utility bills for this period to provide the analysis for EA PRE 2 and EA CRE1, and to submit to USGBC as supporting documentation. The question is, Can the USGBC application be submitted for consideration later than 90 days after the completion of the performance period? After we receive all utility bills it will require 15 days to complete the analysis, template, and compile supporting documentation." "Yes, under the circumstances mentioned it would be acceptable to delay submitting the LEED-EB application in order to obtain utility bills that are necessary for credit and prerequisite documentation. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5340" "2009-03-10" "Existing Buildings" "The Fillmore Center is a multi family housing development comprised of 1114 apartment units spread across 10 buildings totaling 1,640,000 sq. ft. There are 5 types of units (studio, one bedroom, etc.) Residential buildings of this type are not eligible for Energy Star and therefore require compliance with EA Prerequisite 2 via Options B or C, as appropriate. The LEED-EB:O&M Reference Guide, on page 195, notes that ""buildings must have energy meters that measure all energy use throughout the performance period."" We are seeking an exception to that requirement due to the owner\'s inability to achieve whole-building metering, and propose an alternative means for reliably estimating building energy consumption. Fillmore Center management currently collects two forms of energy consumption data directly - whole-building gas consumption and common area electricity consumption. Management does not receive electrical usage information for the tenant spaces because they are all separately metered. Although Fillmore Center management would prefer to install whole-building electric meters to track electricity consumption, the utility provider (PG&E) has repeatedly denied requests to do so or to allow such metering. Consideration was given to collection of historical energy use data from all tenants. Unfortunately, the number of tenants (over 1000) makes this approach cost prohibitive. In the absence of reliable, financially feasible data sources for the entire building(s), we propose to employ a sampling approach to estimate annual energy consumption for the facility. Please note, the sampling approach will inform only the fraction of total building energy use which is currently unknown - all gas consumption and electricity consumption for common areas is known and documented with metered data. We propose the following to achieve EA Prerequisite 2: To develop an estimate of the tenant area electricity consumption portion of total energy consumption for the complex, we will collect a statistical random sampling of energy usage data from the tenants and use this information to extrapolate total tenant area electrical usage for the property. Because a random sample is essential to this process, we will leverage an existing random process - tenant lease renewal - to obtain the appropriate sample. As tenant leases come up for renewal (determined purely by lease durations and timing), tenants seeking to renew will be asked to provide permission/access to utility data for their spaces for the past year, and going forward on a continuing basis. This will ensure that all spaces provide a total of one year or more of overlapping data. All resulting data will be actual metered electricity consumption data, rather than modeled data - it will simply be for a representative fraction of the floor space, rather than the entire tenant-occupied floor area. At a minimum, the sample will represent 10% of total building tenant occupied floor space, and will be balanced by domicile type (studio, 1 BR, etc.) in a manner that correlates with actual distribution of these domicile types. As we collect data, we will continuously update the average energy usage, along with standard deviation. In order to ensure that our sample accurately represents the population, we will continue to collect sample data until the subsequent data consistently falls within two standard deviations of the average. By tracking the data in this manner we can ensure with a 95% confidence interval that our data accurately represents total electrical usage within tenant spaces. The estimated tenant-area electrical consumption data will be integrated with the metered whole-building gas consumption and metered common-area electricity consumption data to produce a highly-informed estimate of total building energy consumption, we will compare this figure against national median energy data as per the requirements of EA Prerequisite 2 / Credit 1 Option B/C. Our questions for the USGBC are: Is this an acceptable method to achieve EA Minimum Energy Performance Pre-requisite and Credits? Are there any actions that the USGBC would like to see us take to ensure accurate data collection and benchmarking?" "Though the USGBC understands the complexity and challenges associated with collecting and benchmarking whole-building energy consumption, current requirements for basing benchmarking on whole-building actual consumption cannot be relaxed. Energy in tenant spaces must be accounted for through the installation of meters/sub-meters." "2420" "None"