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) "Rating System Correction, Reference Guide Correction" "100000231" "2010-01-08" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" " Rating System: 27, Reference Guide: 151" "CASE 1" "In the third line of the fourth paragraph, remove the text ""both"" and ""and all comparable buildings used for the benchmark"" so it becomes the following:\n\nHave energy meters that measure all energy use throughout the\nperformance period of buildings to be certified. Each building\'s energy\nperformance must be based on actual metered energy consumption for\nthe LEED project. A full 12 months of continuous measured energy\ndata is required." "Reference Guide Correction" "100000233" "2010-01-14" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" "161" "CASE 2, OPTION 2B" "In header, replace the ""7"" with a ""9"" so the text becomes ""CASE 2, OPTION 2B: Energy Baseline Including Historical Data (maximum 9 points)""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100000234" "2009-11-02" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" "163" "Sharing Access to ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Data" "In this section, replace all instances of ""USGBC"" with ""GBCI"" " "Reference Guide Correction" "100000232" "2010-01-08" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" "160" "CASE 2, OPTION 2A" "In header, remove the text ""(maximum 2 points)"" and replace with ""(EAp2 compliance option)"" so the text becomes ""CASE 2, OPTION 2A: Streamlined Baseline (EAp2 compliance option)""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100000676" "2010-11-03" "Existing Buildings" "1949, 2405, 2505, 2623, 5116, 5174, 5378, 100000688" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition$Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010" "157" "First paragraph on page (begins with ""EPA continues"")" "Replace the last sentence of the paragraph with ""If the location for an international project is not listed, consult ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendices B and D to determine a comparable US city.""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100000677" "2010-11-03" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition$Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010" "160" "CASE 2, OPTION 1: Adjusted Benchmark Score" "In the fifth line of the first paragraph, replace ""average"" with ""mean"" so the text becomes ""...better than the national mean to calculate...""" "Rating System Correction, Reference Guide Correction" "100000678" "2010-11-03" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition$Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010" "Rating System: 27, Reference Guide: 152" "CASE 2, OPTION 1" "Replace the paragraph with the following text:\nDemonstrate energy efficiency performance that is better than 71% of\nsimilar buildings (71st 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 in\nthe LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance,\n2009 Edition." "Global ACP" "100001395" "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: 29" "Case 1" "Delete the box that states ""This CASE is not available to Projects outside the U.S.""" "Global ACP" "100001397" "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: 30" "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.""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100000993" "2011-08-01" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "BO+M RG: 161" "CASE 2, OPTION 2B" "Remove the last paragraph ""If this process results in fewer than 2 points under EA Credit 1, then a refined baseline in Option 2C should be considered.""" "Global ACP" "100001401" "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: 32" "Requirements" "Delete the Alternative Compliance Path for Projects Outside the U.S." "Reference Guide Correction" "100001173" "2012-04-01" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition$Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "BO+M RG: 159" "6. Calculations" "Delete the last sentence in the second paragraph, ""Renewable energy generated and consumed on-site is excluded from these calculations.""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100001079" "2011-11-01" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "BO+M RG: 162" "Recent Energy Efficiency Improvements" "Remove the last line of the section\'s paragraph (starts with ""If the minimum"")" "Global ACP" "100001396" "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: 29" "Case 2" "Add ""with a primary space type"" after ""For buildings""" "Global ACP" "100001398" "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: 30" "Option 2" "Delete the box that states ""Note for Projects Outside the U.S.""" "Global ACP" "100001399" "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: 30" "Option 2" "The first paragraph of this option should read ""For buildings not suited for Case 2, Option 1, 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.""" "Global ACP" "100001400" "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: 30" "Option 2" "Add the following after the first paragraph and before ""AND"": ""OPTION 2a. Streamlined Baseline (EAp2 only - 0 points)\nThis option is only available through EAp2. Enter 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" "LEED Interpretation" "10018" "2011-05-09" "Existing Buildings" "For an office campus of eight buildings, where metering occurs only at the campus level, is it acceptable to either enter all buildings as one into portfolio manager, or to use the EAc1 Option B calculator?" "Distinct buildings must be separately benchmarked to show compliance with EAp2 / EAc1 based on actual, measured consumption within a given building. Submeters should be installed to collect one year of consumption data in each building, and then the Energy Star Portfolio Manager should be used to generate a rating for each. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10019" "2011-05-09" "Existing Buildings" "For a building which recently installed a separate meter for a parking deck, is it acceptable to submit using only 6 months of actual metering data and extrapolate the rest, as consumption varies only minimally from month to month?" "Energy Star requires 12 months of metered data. This approach cannot be accepted." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10241" "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. The guidance is located at \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. " "10239, 10243" "Treatment of Scandinavian District Energy Systems in LEED v1 2012" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10243" "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. The guidance is located at \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. " "10239, 10241" "Treatment of Scandinavian District Energy Systems in LEED v1 2012" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10260" "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." "10259" "EB: O&M Residential Utility Sampling Protocol" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2081" "2008-04-25" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Recently, USGBC approved a CIR regarding savings from key cards in hotel rooms (5/14/07 - see attached). We are requesting that under LEED-NC savings from submetering of multi-family buildings be accepted as an exceptional calculation method. There are no code requirements for submetering of apartment or condominiums in multi-family buildings. Submetering of utilities for individual tenants or owners in multi-family buildings is an added construction cost, but significant energy savings result. Studies have shown that a minimum of 10% energy savings are achieved once individual metering is implemented. Research done by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA: http://www.nyserda.org/publications/SubmeterManual.pdf) estimates that installing sub-meters in a master-metered building can reduce building-wide electricity consumption by 10-26%. In Ontario, Canada, non-electrically heated submetered apartments have shown a 16-22% reduction in electricity consumption while electrically heated apartments with submetering showed a reduction in consumption of 30% (http://www.frpo.org/Document/Topics&Issues/UtilitiesEnergy/Options%20to%20Reduce%20Energy%20Consumption%20by%20Encouraging%20Sub-Metering%20and%20Individual%20Billing%20in%20Multi-Residential%20Rental%20Dwellings.%20By%20FRPO,%20February%202003.pdf). Based on these studies and the fact that submetering is not required by the energy codes, we request that USGBC allow an exceptional calculation method to account for the savings from submetering. We are proposing that 10% cost savings of all submetered end uses be allowed by the calculation method. So, if a living unit is submetered for electricity and gas, the project can assume 10% cost savings for each of these fuel sources based on the energy use within the unit. Energy use in common areas of the building would be excluded from the calculation. Is this acceptable? Related CIR\'s 4/12/2007 - Credit Interpretation Request Per ASHRAE 90.1-1999 and 2004 mandatory requirements, hotel guestrooms must include a master control device at the main room entry that controls all permanently installed luminaires and switched receptacles. We are considering automating this lighting control with the use of a key card-activated master switch. The control would turn off all permanently installed and switched receptacle lighting after the guestroom is unoccupied for more than 30 minutes. The controls may also be configured to allow the interior window shades to be closed automatically when the guestroom is unoccupied. Monitored data for hotel lighting usage patterns is provided in a 1999 Research study by Erik Page and Michael Siminovitch entitled ""Lighting Energy Savings in Hotel Guestrooms."" This study indicates an average daily usage of nearly 8 hours for the bathroom light, 2 hours for the desk table lamp, 5 hours for the bedside lamp, and 3 hours for a floor lamp. The study also showed that the high use fixtures (the bathroom fixture and bed lamp) did not experience a significant drop during typically unoccupied periods. Instead, these lights were 20% - 25% on during these periods; and the lighting energy consumed during these periods accounted for about 60% of the total guestroom lighting energy consumption. Another study for ACEEE entitled the ""Emerging Energy-Savings Technologies and Practices for the Building Sector as of 2004"" projects an energy savings for key card lighting controls of 30%. Based on the information provided in these two studies, it seems reasonable to credit hotel guestroom lighting fixtures with a 30% energy savings for automated control based on room occupancy. We propose to model the energy savings achieved through automated control of lighting and interior window shades as an exceptional calculation measure. The lighting savings would be calculated by adjusting the proposed case lighting schedules for all permanently installed and switched receptacle fixtures to 50% lower than the budget case for the percentage of guestrooms modeled as unoccupied. Lighting during all occupied periods will be modeled identically to the budget case. The guestroom lighting energy savings achieved through this measure for the affected lighting fixtures would be 30%. Automated control of the blinds is intended to limit solar heat gains, since the building is in a hot dry climate. The blinds will be modeled identically during the occupied periods as 50% open during daylit hours, and 25% open during evening hours. During unoccupied periods, the shades will be modeled as 25% open. As with all exceptional calculation measures, the savings for this automated control measure will include a narrative documenting the lighting and interior shading schedules and assumptions, and the calculation methodology, and will include a separate line item on the ECB report documenting the savings achieved from this measure. We would like confirmation whether the proposed modeling methodology is acceptable, or direction regarding any modifications that would need to be made to the proposed modeling methodology in order to comply with LEED ECB modeling requirements. 5/14/2007 - Ruling The applicant is requesting confirmation on the proposed strategy for two exceptional calculations. Based on the description of the lighting assumptions, the proposed approach is acceptable. In the LEED submittal please include a narrative documenting the lighting schedules and assumptions and the calculation methodology. Also include a separate line item on the ECB report documenting the savings achieved from this measure. Please provide enough detail in the documentation to allow the review team to ascertain the amount of credit claimed. Based on the description of the automated blinds, the assumptions concerning blind control are insufficient to model the proposed building." "The project team is inquiring as to whether or not sub-metering of multi-family residential buildings would be acceptable as an exceptional calculation method. The energy savings associated with sub-metering are due to a change in occupant behavior and not due to building efficiency. As a result, the schedules in the baseline case must be modeled identically to those in the design case. Therefore project teams may not claim credit for sub-metering of a multi-family residential building through the exceptional calculation method." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2112" "2008-05-27" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This Project involves the construction of a Testing Facility for High Volume Low Velocity circulation fans. The building consists of a 1940 S.F. General Office Area, a 1940 S.F. Shop Area, and a 40550 S.F. Testing Area with a 50\' joist height. The Testing Area will have in it at most (4) four High Volume Low Velocity circulation fans operating at the same time. The building will have no transient occupants, and a maximum of (6) six employees that will occupy the entire building during normal business hours. This CIR is in reference to the Testing Area. 1. Testing Area: As part of the USGBC New Construction & Major Renovation Version 2.2, the building is required to meet ASHRAE 90.1 2004 (Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings), and ASHRAE 62.1 2004 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality). In accordance with ASHRAE 90.1 2004 the Testing Area is given a baseline LPD (Lighting Power Density) of 1.4 W/SF as is standard for a Laboratory. The only reference in ASHRAE 62.1 2004 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality) with regard to a Laboratory is listed in Table 6-1 under ""Educational Facilities"" - ""Science Laboratories"". The classification that most closely matches the actual use of the space in the Testing Area for ventilation purposes is a Warehouse, since the population density is low (6760 SF/Person), and the area will never contain ""Laboratory"" chemicals, ""Laboratory"" exhaust hoods, Make-Up air or a population density on par with an Educational Facility Science Laboratory. The Ventilation and Exhaust requirements for a Science Lab are (3) three times that of a Warehouse, and subsequently (3) three times the energy cost. Since the ""actual"" usage of the Testing Area fits the lighting energy requirements of a Laboratory (ASHRAE 90.1 2004) and the ventilation requirements of a Warehouse (ASHRAE 62.1 2004), can the design team consider this space as such for calculations, or does the requirement to stay consistent with room classifications supersede actual building function?" "The applicant is requesting to use the lighting power calculations for one space type and ventilation calculations for a different space type. The ventilation quantities for the Testing facility appear to be associated with process issues associated only with the tests being run, not ventilation requirements associated with Standard 62.1-2004 requirements for indoor air quality. The project team should model the ventilation the same in the Baseline and Proposed Case, and should model the lighting power density requirements based on the closest space type from the ASHRAE Space-by-Space method. " "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2128" "2008-05-27" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This project is located on a multi-building medical campus in Illinois. Typical of a campus, it is composed of numerous existing buildings, parking structures, surface lots and circulation streets. The campus is proposing to build, as separately bid projects, a new inpatient building, some additions to existing buildings, and a new parking structure. Our intent is to pursue LEED Certification for the new inpatient building, a new multi-level parking structure and new portions of site work on the campus, but not the additions to existing buildings. One of the buildings included in the project boundary is an open parking structure. The parking structure includes an enclosed combination stair/elevator lobby. We intend to heat this stair/elevator lobby as well as ventilate the space. A telecommunication closet along with an electrical room will be heated and conditioned as well. The parking garage is not required to be ventilated since it is classified as an open parking structure. The parking garage and stair/elevator lobby will have lighting as required. LEED for Multiple Buildings allows a weighted aggregate for the group of buildings based on their conditioned square footage or aggregate PRM calculation. We would like to confirm only the areas being heated and conditioned are required to be included in the square footage calculation for this particular structure when being considered into the overall aggregate or overall PRM. The lighting square footage will take into account the overall square footage being covered by lighting. Please confirm that we are using the correct calculation methodology for this point." "The applicant has requested confirmation that the weighted average building method from the Multiple Buildings Application Guide is based only on the conditioned area of each building. This is a correct assumption. The language from the EA Credit 1 Multiple language guide states that the ""weighted average for the group of buildings (should) be based on their conditioned square footage."" The definitions of space types from ASHRAE 90.1-2004, page 13, should be used to identify whether spaces are defined as ""conditioned"", ""semi-heated"", or ""unconditioned"". The ASHRAE 90.1 Performance Rating Method (Appendix G) should be used to model each building in the project boundary, including the parking structure. Therefore, all interior and exterior parking garage lighting, elevator energy, etc. should be included into the energy model for the parking structure, regardless of whether the spaces are conditioned or unconditioned. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2339" "2008-10-24" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our project is a 65,000 SF injection molding manufacturing facility and office near Detroit, MI. The project consists of 10,000 SF of air-conditioned office space, and 55,000 SF of air-conditioned manufacturing space, which includes injection molding equipment, as well as occupied assembly areas. The energy required for the manufacturing process exceeds 85% of the facility\'s total energy load. To achieve the 14% minimum energy savings, process load energy savings must be taken into account. As a result of the high energy loads associated with the manufacturing process, as well as the energy not falling under ASHRAE 90.1-2004, an exceptional calculation method must be established for the manufacturing area. Both the office area and the manufacturing area are conditioned. Space cooling in these areas will be achieved through constant volume rooftop units, and will be modeled through a standard energy modeling software like Trane Trace 700. The manufacturing process includes injection molding machinery which is cooled through a chiller & cooling tower assembly. The load on the chiller and cooling tower will not fluctuate (except for operational and non-operational hours, which will be achieved through a schedule). The chiller and cooling tower performance will be run in a separate energy model using this constant load to determine the overall energy used based on the outdoor air conditions throughout the year. The Chiller and cooling tower energy used will then be input into the original model as annual process energy. The Chiller and Cooling Tower efficiencies for the baseline will be based off ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum standards. The injection molding equipment proposed is state-of-the-art and very energy efficient compared to the standard injection molding machinery that is the industry standard. Using the client-provided operational times for the equipment we will be able to estimate the total energy used by this injection molding equipment, as well as the total energy that would be used by industry standard equipment. This will be used to determine the annual energy for both the baseline and the proposed design. We will then input these amounts into the original energy model as annual process energy. For comparison purposes, we also have a similar plant by the same client that uses the industry standard machines. By comparing the amount of equipment and square footage of this plant, we can achieve a very accurate idea of how much energy the new plant is saving. All calculations showing how the machinery energy was determined, and results of planned field monitoring, will be explained in an excel spreadsheet. Equipment descriptions and energy loads will be shown for all machines that will be used, as well as for comparable industry standard machines. Once the process equipment, both baseline and proposed, have been input into the overall energy model as process loads, the standard reports issued from the model will be used for the LEED Reports. In addition, we will provide the sub-energy models of the process equipment that is weather-based. Please confirm that our assumptions and method of calculating the process energy load for both the base and proposed design cases are acceptable for EAc1." "The applicant is requesting acceptance of the proposed energy modeling methodology for a process dominated project. While the overall process for exceptional calculations seems reasonable, the applicant must make the following changes to the calculation methodology: 1. Include all loads in the same model and not in two separate models. This will allow the models to accurately reflect any interactions between the process loads and the space conditioning loads. 2. Provide a side-by-side comparison of the industry standard equipment, its age with the new proposed equipment and define an energy efficiency metric for each piece of equipment (e.g. kWh/ pound of material processed). Also provide list of modifications that make the new equipment more efficient. 3. Provide detailed utility bills from the comparison facility for reference. 4. Provide the operation schedules for the facility and the equipment. Please note that while this Credit Interpretation Ruling provides guidance on the exceptional calculation methodology, the actual savings and credit available for the strategies will be determined only during the review of the actual documentation. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2416" "2009-02-03" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our project is a newly constructed, 825,751 square foot automotive manufacturing facility in the midwest. The ventilation requirements for our facility, as set forth by ASHRAE 62.1, Section 2.2 states: ""Additional requirements for laboratory, industrial, and other spaces may be dictated by workplace and other standards,."". Industrial facilities in this location fall under the requirements of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA). Per MIOSHA\'s, health standards (""Part 520. Ventilation Control""), R325.52007 Exhaust ventilation systems, Rule 7 states : ""The minimum rate of exhaust ventilation for places of manufacturing, processing, assembling, maintenance and repair, or storage of material shall be 1 cubic foot of air per minute per square foot of floor area. This amount of exhaust ventilation may be provided by local exhaust, general exhaust, or both. The director may permit a variance if contaminant control is accomplished at a lesser rate of ventilation."" MIOSHA has stated that an allowable level of contaminant control for dust/mist particulate would be 5 mg/cubic meter. In an attempt to save ongoing heating, cooling and ventilation expenses, the Owner chose to design the new facility in an innovative manner that could attain contaminant control at a much lesser ventilation rate than the default 1 CFM/SF that is set forth by MIOSHA and used by other automotive manufacturing facilities. The manufacturing facility has set a target of 0.5 mg/cubic meter, significantly lower than the MIOSHA required level of contaminant control. In order to reach this high level of contaminant control, they implemented the following innovative approaches: 1 - For the machining and grinding processes, enclosures were constructed and oil mist/dust collection systems were implemented with HEPA filtration. 2 - For the parts washers, enclosures were constructed and local exhaust ventilation systems were designed to capture contaminants at the source. 3 - For processes using hazardous materials, local exhaust ventilation systems were designed to capture contaminants at the source. 4 - ""Dry floor guarding"" systems have been implemented in the machine tool enclosures in order to minimize any escaping mist from the process. 5 - Micro-bacteria resistant coolants are used in the plant and biocides and utilized and monitored in order to control the bacterial counts in such systems. These control measures are over and above what is done in a typical, newly constructed manufacturing plant. With these control measures being utilized, extensive testing was done through the manufacturing facility to ensure that MIOSHA (and the much more stringent company requirements) exposure limits were being met. During the testing, the facility was ventilated at a rate of 0.21 CFM per square foot. At this ventilation rate, the facility was far below the company\'s target exposure limits, never measuring higher than a 0.13 mg/cubic meter exposure level. The Owner operates their facility at a ventilation rate of 0.5 CFM per square foot. This adds another level of safety factor to the building design. We are proposing that we run the energy model, in both the baseline and proposed case, with a ventilation rate of 1.0 CFM per square foot. We then intend to use the Exceptional Calculation Methodology of ASHRAE 90.1 to quantify our energy cost savings by lowering the ventilation rate. We intend to re-run our ""proposed"" model with 0.5 CFM per square foot to determine the cost savings for this exceptional calculation." "The applicant is proposing that energy savings due to ventilation load reduction resulting from several pollutant source control measures be approved as an Exceptional Calculation Methodology (ECM). The use of baseline and proposed case exhaust rates above those required by ASHRAE 62.1-2004 Section 6.2.8 are acceptable per ASHRAE 62.1-2004 Section 2.2 and the requirements specified by Michigan Occupational Health and Safety Administration (MIOSHA). Since it is a non-regulated process load, the project team must establish reasonable assumptions under full operational conditions for the baseline and proposed case. It appears that the project team has put a substantial effort into identifying and controlling sources of indoor pollutants and in an effort to reduce ventilation loads. Additionally, testing has been conducted to verify that the particulate concentrations are well below MIOSHA requirements even at reduced ventilation rates. The proposed documentation of energy savings from ventilation load reductions in the proposed case may be documented as an ECM. Please note that the favorable ruling of this CIR does not guarantee credit acceptance during a review. The project team should provide sufficient documentation to support the proposed ECM. Also note that the ruling is specifically applicable to the project in question due to the substantial efforts made to control sources of indoor air contamination at the source and testing for compliance; the ruling is not necessarily applicable to projects with different circumstances." "10291" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2441" "2009-01-14" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "This project is a remodeling of an existing office building that will include the addition of a Data Center. The Data Center will make extensive use of server virtualization to save energy, space and money. Server virtualization is the technique of replacing multiple servers with one server running multiple ""virtual servers"" on one larger, high performance server. In their existing Data Center, our client runs an average of 8 virtual servers on each high-performance server. Although the high performance server uses more energy than any one of the low to medium performance servers that it replaces, this results in a net energy savings of between 60-75%. Our question is: Under EAc1, Option 1, may we use the Exceptional Calculation Method to model the energy savings accountable to server virtualization?" "The applicant may use the Exceptional Calculation Method to take credit for any energy savings available from the server virtualization technology. Be sure to include as supporting documentation under EAc1 all assumptions made in the calculations, detailed data, any actual measurements taken to support the savings claims and any other pertinent information. Please note that the actual amount of credit will be determined by the review team at the time of the review. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2532" "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. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2557" "2009-04-14" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "This project is to renovate 300,000 square feet of an old factory and convert to a distribution center. The owner strongly desires to be sustainable and will use many sustainable features whether or not LEED certification is sought. We will use high efficiency lighting and high efficiency infrared heaters, but no cooling. If we use the ASHRAE appendix G, we have to model the baseline cooling system for the baseline and the proposed. Since the cooling energy will be much larger than the heating energy the 14% reduction from ASHRAE will not be possible. This force the project to be penalized for energy never actually used. In this case we feel that the ASHRAE standard does not rationally apply. This project will reuse a large facility and incorporate significant sustainability features and we would not like to be excluded because the ASHRAE standard does not apply logically to this facility. Is there any alternative method for compliance in this situation?" "The project has requested clarification regarding the use of the ASHRAE Baseline requirements in Appendix G. Although a cooling system must be modeled in both the Baseline and Design case, there are no requirements for Temperature Setpoint. Therefore, both cases may have the Cooling Temperature Setpoint elevated such that both systems do not ever run and thus does not consume any energy. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2620" "2009-06-04" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "The question is based on ASHRAE 90.1 requirements for Performance Rating Method for building modeling. This building has very high internal loads with the baseline process load at 49% of the total building energy based on actual equipment. The internal load is primarily computer desktops and monitors. Both baseline and proposed building energy usage numbers are based on a calculation worksheet as published by the US dept of Energy for computer desktops and monitors. The Energy Star usage value increases the proposed energy building performance reduction by 10-15%. This lower value for the process load is still above the 25% requirement for the total building energy amount as outlined in the LEED requirements of this point. The equipment in the new building that the owner will provide will consist of Energy Star computer desktops and monitors. We request clarification that we can run the baseline with standard energy load based on LBNL 2007 standards and proposed building with Energy Star energy loads." "The applicant is requesting clarification on how to account for energy savings due to Energy Star rated equipment. Plug in equipment falls under the Process Loads category and any savings claimed under process loads have to be taken as an Exceptional Calculation. Please model the same process loads in both the baseline and proposed building. Then run a separate run of the proposed building with the Energy Star rated equipment. Report savings from this run Exceptional Calculation table in the LEED Submittal Template. Be sure to include a detailed narrative with all assumptions and supporting calculations with the submittal. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5161" "2008-10-24" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This project is a major renovation to the existing building envelope (new skin added, new windows) and to the common area part of a tenant occupied office building. We have received approval from the USGBC to use LEED for New Construction. The core space lighting (elevator areas, lobby, restrooms, conference rooms), ductwork and finishes will be modified but the central air handling system and air cooled chiller and the tenant spaces will be only minimally altered. The question has been posed by the building manager regarding if they need to replace the tenant lighting in the space as the tenant space is not in the scope of work for the project. According to the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 users guide, if you were to replace more than 50% of the lighting fixtures in the building, you would have to meet ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lighting requirements, which, based on our analysis of what the base case and current design is in terms of lighting power density for this office building, means the building managers would have to replace all the tenant lighting with T8, 25 Watt lamps. However, if we replace less than 50% of the lighting in the building, we are not dictated by ASHRAE 90.1-2004, unless the renovation increases installed lighting power. However, according to the LEED Reference Guide for the prerequisite EAp2, lighting applies to all lighting installed on the building site including interior and exterior lighting. If the total installed interior lighting power is lower than the interior lighting power allowance calculated using ASHRAE 90.1-2004, the project complies. These two statements contradict each other if there is less than 50% of the lighting replaced, but the LEED Reference Guide does refer to the ASHRAE 90.1 users manual as a reference. Please advise on what to assume for the tenant space lighting power density in both the base case ASHRAE 90.1-2004 compliant building and the design case if less than 50% of the lighting is replaced." "According to the requirements of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, Appendix G Table G3.1 section 6, for the proposed case, if a complete lighting system exists, the actual lighting power needs to be modeled. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5168" "2009-04-10" "Existing Buildings" "We are writing this CIR to propose an alternate method for calculating the energy efficiency due to the limitations we see in the new LEED-EBOM for Semiconductors. We are considering going with Option C2 because of following reasons but still encountering unclear direction in the RG for calculating the historical baseline. Offline calculator for Option C2 is not available in LEED-EBOM RG & LEED-Online template. The Option C2 instruction is in a way similar to the old LEED-EBv2 instruction. As such, we are proposing to use the methods & calculations defined in the LEED-EBv2 in calculating our energy efficiency based on kwhr/space actual utilization (excluding idle spaces). Reasons: Our project covers a semiconductor assembly & test facilities, it caters for various & multiple type\'s semiconductor products that changes from time-to-time. Our operation started in 2001 & the total area of the building was 301ksf. Manufacturing & office spaces represent 60% & 26% of the total area respectively. The manufacturing floor spaces were not occupied completely when its operation started, over the years the manufacturing space had gradually been occupied & made some minor space conversion to cater for the growing demand. The space utilization varies dynamically as the products converts from one technology to another - that normally last for a couple of months; manufacturing equipment layout will require changes that will induce temporary idle spaces. We performed manufacturing tool compaction activities to allow producing more products on the same floor space with the intention to prevent building more structures & facilities. It was done without sacrificing the air ventilation & ergonomic concerns of the employees working in the production area. Despite the efforts done to reduce consumption & improve plant efficiency, the plant faces problems in meeting EAc1 of the LEED-EBOM RG. Under Option A, obtaining an Energy Star Rating in the Portfolio Manager is not possible for semiconductor plants for the reasons that said ""building type"" is not available in the EPA system. Also, our semiconductor manufacturing floor areas categorized as ""others space type"" in the Portfolio Manager exceeded the allowable percentage space limit in the system, thus making it un-ratable. In Option B, the RG provides two options either by demonstrating 19% efficiency as benchmarked against a national median or use USGBC LEED-Online supplementary offline calculator. In comparing our buildings energy usage with other buildings of similar space types & similar climate, we\'re experiencing problems in conducting the benchmarking due to the fact that we don\'t have similar processes & products even within our company; most of our other plants are not located within the same geographical region. Our manufacturing plants are not alike when it comes to production mix, each sites produces different products. Today, there is no energy benchmark available for semiconductor facilities. Under the Eligibility tab of the offline calculator Question C-4, it states that ""If the Energy Star rating was unavailable because of building characteristics or activities is over 10% of the project building\'s space, as entered on Portfolio Manager, classified as ""data center"", ""Service"", or other unclassified - then it directs us to use the general option C instructions in the RG & don\'t use the offline calculator. Our manufacturing space accounts to 60% of the total area & prohibits us from using the offline calculator. Option C1 requires applicants to obtain its weather-normalized EUI in the Portfolio Manager and compare it to a national EUI average source in CBECS. Similar to EPA, CBECS doesn\'t have any modeled data that represents semiconductor EUI, as such comparative benchmarking is again not possible." "The project team request clarification on the EA Prerequisite 1 option appropriate to a semiconductor facility. Because the facility is 60% manufacturing space, the project team is not eligible to use Option A or Option B. Additionally, the team indicates that data from comparable buildings is not available, making Option C3 unviable for this particular facility. The below paths can be utilized for project buildings in this situation, with different point levels available based on the path chosen. Option C1 - Up to two points available Show a percent reduction from the baseline during the performance period using the EA Credit 1 Options B & C Calculator, Option C1 Streamlined Approach. The path is based on total consumption within the project building and associated grounds, including all manufacturing process loads, compared to Adjusted National Average Source EUI (manufacturing spaces would be classified as ""All Other - not classified). Up to two points can be achieved based on this path. An expanded version of the EA Credit 1 Options B & C Calculator is now available in LEED Online and on the Registered Projects Tools web page to facilitate this calculation. Please follow the instructions for Option C in the offline calculator and the LEED for Existing Building: Operations & Maintenance Reference Guide. Option C2 - Up to seven points available Show a percent reduction from the building's historic energy use baseline during the performance period as using the EA Credit 1 Options B & C Calculator, Option C2 Historic Data. The path is based on total consumption within the project building and associated grounds, including all manufacturing process loads, compared to Adjusted National Average Source EUI (manufacturing spaces would be classified as ""All Other - not classified). Up to seven points can be achieved based on this path. An expanded version of the EA Credit 1 Options B & C Calculator is now available in LEED Online and on the Registered Projects Tools web page to facilitate this calculation. Please follow the instructions for Option C in the offline calculator and the LEED for Existing Building: Operations & Maintenance Reference Guide. Option D, New Compliance Path - Up to four points available This path is available in facilities that meet the following conditions: - The facility includes manufacturing process load spaces as well as other spaces uses - The manufacturing process load space is not more than 2/3rds of the square footage of the building - At least ¬ of the building is ratable via Energy Star Portfolio Manager The applicant should isolate energy consumption associated with manufacturing from the rest of the building and separately show compliance for each. This can be accomplished in one of three ways: 1) Separate the building into distinct spaces, and submeter all loads associated with the manufacturing space (including process, HVAC, and lighting loads), 2) measure all manufacturing process loads using permanent submetering, or 3) spot measure all manufacturing process loads for a representative sample of time every year to demonstrate consumption rate associated with manufacturing processes. Normalize at least 3 months of submetering or spot metering data from the manufacturing loads based on the product output to show that energy per product unit is stable or trending down. This trending analysis must be performed for at least two consecutive years (one of which can be the year of the LEED:EB&OM performance period). For the non-manufacturing portion of the building, show compliance using the regular protocol for that space type. For example, office spaces would be expected to receive an Energy Star rating. Based on the energy performance in the non-manufacturing portion of the building, up to four points can be achieved." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "5178" "2009-01-12" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our project is a new 174,786 square foot refrigerated warehouse with interior offices. The office area will comprise approximately 8,800 square feet of the total building. The refrigerated portion of the building will be unoccupied and fully automated, maintained at -10 degrees Fahrenheit, and will include a receiving dock area maintained at +40 degrees Fahrenheit. For the baseline and actual energy performance calculations utilized for EAc1, we are proposing to calculate the office area and equipment of the building only, and exclude the refrigerated portion of the building. To clarify, the portion of the building under consideration includes the following elements: 1. Freezer Storage Area 2. Receiving Area (cold dock) a. Rail Access Vestibule b. Maintenance Room c. Storage Room d. Refrigerator Equipment Mezzanine e. Fire Pump/Sprinkler Room f. Electrical Room ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Section 2.3 states that the standard does not apply to ""(c) equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes."" The ASHRAE 90.1-2004 User\'s manual reinforces the point ""for example, the Standard does not apply to refrigerated warehouses that are cooled to maintain the quality of the goods stored in the warehouse."" We wish to clarify that for a refrigerated warehouse, the baseline and actual energy calculations for prerequisite EAp2 and credit EAc1 will be based on the office portion of the building only. All energy used for refrigeration in the previously described areas will be excluded from the calculations nor contribute to the required 25% process load. Note however, the envelope portion of the refrigerated warehouse will remain in full compliance with ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section 5. Please confirm that this approach is correct." "The applicant is requesting a waiver from including the refrigerated warehouse from EAp2 and EAc1 calculations. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 does not apply to refrigerated warehouses. This means that there are no minimum efficiency requirements prescribed in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for these spaces. However, this does not mean that it can be excluded from EAp2 and EAc1 calculations. As per the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide, ALL energy end-uses must be included in the EAc1 calculations. Since the refrigerated warehouse portion of the project is not regulated under ASHRAE 90.1-2004, the applicant must maintain this portion as energy neutral i.e. keep the modeling inputs for that portion identical in both the proposed and baseline models. Applicable Internationally. " "2026, 2301, 5342" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5235" "2009-06-30" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our project consists of multifamily rental units. We are performing the energy model using TRACE 700, a program that meets ASHRAE Standard 140-2004: Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load Tests. TRACE 700 does not have the capability of modeling domestic hot water energy usage. In order to account for domestic hot water energy usage we are proposing to use the Department of Energy sponsored Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory calculation methodology. The spreadsheet can be found at www.doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp?docid=2249. This spreadsheet estimates the energy consumption of water heaters based on power source, energy factor, and recovery efficiency. In addition, the spreadsheet estimates the energy reductions associated with hot water consumption of Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers. According to the CIR ruling dated 4/25/2007, credit cannot be taken for low flow fixtures accounted for in WE credit 3. However, clothes washers and dishwashers are not accounted for in LEED NC v2.2 WE credit 3. An exceptional calculation in accordance with Appendix G will be provided to demonstrate energy savings for the Energy Star appliance itself. In addition, we believe the reduction in the amount of hot water required by Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers should be accounted for in the water heating calculation. The basis for these calculations found at http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/aboutwhm.html will be uploaded as supporting documentation. 1. Can we use the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory spreadsheet since TRACE 700 does not model energy consumption for domestic water heaters? 2. Can the energy savings for the reduced hot water consumption for Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers be accounted for in the domestic hot water energy consumption calculation?" "The applicant is asking for confirmation that LBNL spreadsheet calculations can be used to document domestic hot water use and asking if hot water savings resulting from Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers can be accounted for in the exceptional calculation. 1. It seems that the LBNL spreadsheet calculations are an appropriate method for calculating domestic hot water use and for documenting the energy savings associated with Energy Star equipment. However in order to be accepted as an exceptional calculation, be sure to include a detailed narrative with all assumptions and supporting calculations with the submittal. 2. Yes, energy savings for reduced hot water consumption can be counted in DHW energy calculation. ***Please note, this CIR was updated on 7/10/2009.***" "None" "None"