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) "LEED Interpretation" "10221" "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, and the minimum thresholds required to achieve the 2-point requirement for EA Credit 1 for EB 2.0 or EB 2008 for projects registered after 06/27/2007.\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. Examples include:\n o Normalization for weather data if the process loads are directly tied to weather data (e.g. refrigeration)\n o 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 • 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 to achieve the prerequisite and the two-point minimum.\n One additional point beyond the minimum prerequisite requirements shall be awarded for every additional 4% improvement documented in the Current Annual Energy Use.\n " "10220" "None" "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" "1715" "2007-04-23" "Existing Buildings" "This GSA owned research facility is 415,000 sq. ft. with a combination of office space, labs, and computer data centers (including supercomputers and other high density data processing machines). The tenant agencies conduct critical research in atmospheric and space sciences. The laboratories on site have 24/7 heating and ventilation requirements for ongoing experiments. In addition, high density data processing centers (including staff support) operate on a 24/7 basis. The combined square footage for these operations totals 15% of the facility. In order to document the Minimum Energy Performance Prerequisite for LEED EB, we propose conducting an engineering evaluation of the labs and high density data processing centers in order to determine a reasonable deduction from our total metered energy use. We propose then using the Energy Star Statement of Energy Performance tool for the office and typical building space only. Due to the fact that the facility\'s labs and high density data processing centers are atypical of offices and regular computer use, we propose deducting the square footage and estimated energy consumption of the labs and high density data processing centers (we would not deduct ""normal"" computer areas as found in typical offices such as communication closet rooms and personal computers). The deducted square footage and energy would still be provided to the USGBC along with explanatory narrative from an engineer. Additional background: We explored the alternative benchmarking approach suggested in the LEED EB guide, but encountered obstacles. Given the unique nature of the facility and the tenant\'s mission, finding a similar building in a similar climate raises concerns regarding accurate benchmarking. Also, we cannot show the required reduction in energy use from our historical average because we have continued to add more computer data centers since original construction. Nevertheless, a summer of 2005 recommissioning report from the local energy provider determined that the facility is operating at a high level of efficiency with only limited opportunities for energy reduction given the demand of the labs and high density data processing centers. Is it acceptable to meet the Minimum Energy Performance Prerequisite by deducting an estimate of the energy usage for labs and data centers from the total building energy usage and then using the Energy Star tool for the office and typical building space only?" "The proposed approach is one allowed by Energy Star for use with the Portfolio Manager Tool with two critical conditions: 1. As the Applicant notes, the relevant square footage must also be subtracted from the total for the purposes of the Energy Star score, and 2. The subtracted energy measurements must be derived from submetering (permanent or temporary) rather than modeled or predicted load calculations. If the project team is pursuing energy savings in EAc1 from the project\'s labs and high density data processing centers, these areas must be included in EAp2 calculations. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "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" "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" "2121" "2008-08-26" "Existing Buildings" "Project Background Our project is one building in a much larger conglomeration of buildings that have been constructed over the last 100 years. The building that we are currently working on LEED EB Certification had a very unique manufacturing process in it that made the chemical ""furfural"" out of oat byproducts. This process was removed from the building approximately 5 years ago and the building has been used for general storage since then. Our project is to renovate the existing building structure and install a new oat cleaning process line. Question The new Cleaning House #3 process is state of the art and incorporates high efficiency equipment and links the process equipment with the building systems to improve efficiency. Our difficulty is developing a base line for comparing the renovated building and new process to, as required in EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1. We would like to use the existing Cleaning House #2 which is located in the same manufacturing facility and is a similar process to the new Cleaning House #3 without the upgraded efficiencies, thereby making it an excellent indicator of what the energy usage would be if it wasn\'t built utilizing sustainable principles as the baseline model. Would you find this an acceptable approach for establishing a baseline for comparison? Assuming our baseline proposal is acceptable we would also like to make the comparison based on a cost per pound of product which includes all energy used in the building and the process, because the existing Cleaning House #2 does not have separate metering systems." "The baseline proposal of using the existing Cleaning House #2 as the Facility Historical Average Energy Use Baseline would provide a valid and acceptable energy use comparison to the Cleaning House #3. It would not be acceptable to make the comparison based on an energy cost basis per pound of product. But it would be acceptable to make the comparison based on an energy consumption basis per pound of product which includes all energy used in the building and the processes. In order to verify the validity of the comparison, the submittal documentation must include a detailed narrative that verifies that the Cleaning House #2 employs a similar process to the Cleaning House #3. The narrative must also include a description of the non-process building space in each building showing that non-process building spaces are similar in size and usage. The following are minimum requirements for this LEED-EB v2.0 EAp2 Alternative Calculation Method alternative compliance path: 1. A minimum of three months of metered performance period energy consumption data must be provided at the individual building level for Cleaning House #3. 2. A Facility Historical Average Energy Use Baseline must be determined at the individual building level for Cleaning House #2. This should be based on the average of 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data within 6 years of the beginning of the LEED-EB performance period (See LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition page 183, Step 1). 3. The Cleaning House #3 Performance Period EUI should be calculated using the methodology described in the LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition page 184, Step 2. 4. Once the Cleaning House #2 Historical Average EUI baseline and Cleaning House #3 Performance Period EUI have been determined, the EAp2 Alternative Calculation Method Option A calculation guidelines should be followed as documented in the LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition pages 184-186. 5. Because the proposed approach is modeled after the Alternative Calculation Method Option A, a maximum of five LEED-EBv2.0 EAc1 points would only be available to the LEED-EB Applicant using this methodology. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "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" "2420" "2009-03-10" "Existing Buildings" "This CIR is to request approval for an alternative method of compliance with EAp1: Minimum Energy Performance in the LEED-EB:O&M program for a high-rise residential co-op building. As stated on page 13 of the LEED-EB:O&M reference manual, the program ""is a set of performance standards for certifying the operations and maintenance of existing commercial or institutional buildings and high-rise residential buildings of all sizes, both public and private."" This particular building has 75 residential units, each individually owned. There is no consolidated information available regarding the energy usage in the building as each tenant is responsible for their utility bill and pays directly to the provider for the energy used. These building characteristics make Option B the most feasible compliance path under EAc1: Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance. Option B is worded as follows: For buildings not eligible to receive an EPA rating using Portfolio Manager, demonstrate energy efficiency in at least the 19th percentile for typical buildings of similar type by benchmarking against national median source energy data provided in the Portfolio Manager tool or in USGBC\'s supplementary calculator as an alternative to EPA ratings. Follow detailed instruction in the LEED for Existing Building: Operations and Maintenance Reference Guide. Unfortunately, it has proven near impossible to collect energy bill data from all 75 residential units; however, the Co-Op board is dedicated to improving energy efficiency and pursuing a LEED certification for the building. Due to the difficult nature of collecting energy usage information from 75 different sources, we would like to propose to use a process of energy benchmarking that is employed by the local state authority - New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) - and used to calculate state based incentives for multi-unit residential existing buildings. Information on this program can be found at: http://www.getenergysmart.org/MultiFamilyHomes/ExistingBuilding/BuildingOwner/Financing.aspx In assessing energy incentives for a building, NYSERDA allows that multi-unit residential buildings take a representative sampling of a minimum of 10% of all units to energy benchmark the building in response to the difficult nature of collecting energy data in a situation where each tenant pays directly for their energy usage. For this building we propose that the same methodology be accepted for benchmarking the building for use in determining compliance with EAp1: Minimum Energy Performance/EAc1: Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance. This project is proposing to take a sampling of a minimum of 10% of building units evenly distributed between apartment type (i.e., 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, or 3 bedroom), solar exposure, and story. Using the representative selection the building would then extrapolate the data for the remaining units and add in the base building energy usage to then calculate the building\'s EUI for baseline comparison. If this specific sampling methodology is not appropriate, please indicate what if any approach USGBC would find appropriate in addressing this issue." "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. Applicable Internationally. " "5340" "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" "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" "5050" "2007-07-19" "Existing Buildings" "Background This credit interpretation request is in reference to LEED-EB requirements for a 497 000 s.f.g. Convention Centre located in Quebec City (Canada), winner of the 2006 AIPC Apex Award for the World\'s Best Congress Centre given by the International Association of Congress Centres. The Quebec City Convention Centre (QCCC) has for mission to welcome conferences, meetings and large-scale exhibits by offering an international convention facility. In the first project analysis for the energy performance prerequisite, we deduced that Conference Centres are not addressed by ENERGY STAR program. We did not find any comparable building in terms of use, square footage and localization. We thus chose the Option A for the buildings not addressed by ENERGY STAR (Reference guide LEED-EB, p.184). The procedure to determine the building energy baseline (Reference guide LEED-EB, p.183) specifies that the historical average energy use must be calculated from 3 consecutive years selected within the 6 years of the performance period beginning. The section Strategies & technologies (reference guide, p.182) show that the objective of this prerequisite is to encourage the owner to make improvements in the building energy performance either by commissioning or by doing systems/equipments improvements. In years 1998 to 2000, the QCCC carried out a series of actions (retro-commissioning) to decrease the building energy consumption such as: 1. Temperatures optimization of the air-conditioning and heating networks by modifying the coolant temperature according to the outdoor temperature in order to avoid the losses of energy produced by too large temperature variations. 2. Optimization of the ventilation and lighting system schedules operation according to events. 3. Employees educational program including practical actions such as: i. Using elevators instead of the service elevators ii. Closing the light by leaving the rooms iii. Informing the operations service when the ventilation is no longer necessary iv. Start up mobile escalators only in period of events. 4. Procedures to follow to reduce the natural gas consumption by closing some steam networks in summer period. The improvements made during this period of time showed an optimization of the energy performance close to 20% and are always in function today. Since the year 2000, the QCCC maintained this performance as required, for example, by a LEED-EB recertification. Calculations proposal These improvements made by the QCCC between 1998 and 2000 can be listed with supporting documentation demonstrating an energy consumption reduction close to 20%. QCCC kept this level of performance since year 2000 which represent a long term engagement to sustainable energy practices. Is it acceptable to push back the building energy baseline beyond the 6 years window as prescribed by the EA Prerequisite 2-Minimum Energy Performance? Our calculation methodology would be: - Energy performance period: April 2006 to march 2007 - Building energy baseline: o LEED-EB - 6 years window for historical data: April 2000 to march 2006 o Our proposal : - 9 years window for historical data: April 1997 to march 2006 - 3 years to determine the historical average energy use: April 1997 to march 2000 Is this an acceptable alternative calculations methodology to meet the requirements of the EA prerequisite 2 - Minimum Energy Performance?" "The six year window is mandatory for the alternative compliance path; buildings which fail to show a 10% improvement in energy performance or efficiency cannot earn the prerequisite. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5116" "2008-03-24" "Existing Buildings" "We propose to satisfy this prerequisite requirement for our office facility located in Bermuda by utilizing the Streamlined Procedure provided in the LEED-EB version 2.0 Reference Guide. Due to the fact our office is located in Bermuda, with no Bermudian peer group buildings to compare to and also no comparable climate data within the United States, it is not covered by the Energy Star rating tool typically used to meet this prerequisite. Using the Streamlined procedure would include developing and documenting a building energy baseline from historical energy use data available from the previous six years. The baseline would be from utility information in years 2002, 2003 and 2004. A reduction in annual energy use of at least 10% during the performance period shall be documented against the building energy use performance baseline. Additional Background: Our 144,000 square foot building is an office facility located in Bermuda, that has a health club and had a new data centre added in February 2006. The data centre occupies less than 10% of the building\'s total square footage. The data centre has sub-metering installed to isolate the energy consumption that will be accounted for in the calculations. The metering shall illustrate 12 months of data collection by extrapolating from a minimum of 3 months should 12 months not be available at time of submission. Please advise if the USGBC will accept the Streamlined Procedure for our Bermuda building, as this is the only item preventing us from applying for certification." "This project must obtain a rating from the Energy Star Portfolio Manager Tool using a comparable climate zone in the U.S. or internationally. The LEED-EB v2.0 Applicant must provide a narrative supporting the climate zone that was selected. Applicable Internationally; Caribbean; Bermuda. " "1949, 2405, 2505, 2623, 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" "5311" "2008-09-08" "Existing Buildings" "Sherbrooke\'s Cegep campus is composed of six buildings with different facilities for a total of 780,000 square feet. First of all, the buildings are not addressed by ENERGY STAR, because they refer to college campus buildings instead of K-12 schools, so the alternate calculation method should be used. We are requesting a credit interpretation. The main reason is because we cannot create the baseline consumption for each building based on the alternate calculation method despite the fact that each building meets the equivalent of an EPA ENERGY STAR rating over 67. The campus has only one electricity meter and one natural gas meter. To determine the historical average per building, we should use, as recommended, three years of data for each building, but we only have the historical data for total campus consumption. Sub-metering systems will be installed within the next month to begin preparing a historical energy consumption report per building. However, sub-metering cannot be done for the three years prior to the ESCO (Energy Service Contracting) project presented to our client and the measures implemented. Given that this project is not addressed under the ENERGY STAR rating and is based on a calculation method that requires unavailable data, we need to find another way of obtaining this prerequisite. All the relevant data useful to evaluate this project are present below. Annual energy used: 70,401,960 kbtu (average for 2003-2004-2005) Annual energy used: 45,186,230 kbtu (after ESCO project) EIU: 90.7 kbtu/sq. ft (average for 2003-2004-2005) EIU: 57.9 kbtu/sq. ft. (after ESCO project) Average-Site EUI, College/University (campus-level): 120 kbtu/sq. ft. Average-Site EUI, Quebec\'s College: 83.5 kbtu/sq. ft. The first average site EUI has been found on the EPA Web site, but the lack of specifications on the weather conditions or building size makes the comparison inaccurate. So we calculated another average-site EUI based on the energy records (see reference) of the 48 cegeps in Quebec. We chose 12 of them that are a similar size and have similar heating and cooling loads. In both cases, our future EUI is low enough to satisfy the higher standard. According to our energy balance calculations, this project guaranteed our client a reduction of 34.7% in the campus\'s annual consumption. This reduction will be primarily obtained by implementing two FIMS. Boiler room upgrades and Control Optimization will represent 11% and 15% savings on the campus\'s annual consumption, for a total of 26%. The two FIMS will reduce the consumption of each building by between 21% and 29%. Other specific FIMS will be implemented to achieve the 34.7% target. Delaying the implantation of these FIMS to carry out the sub-metering for three years in order to respect the alternative calculation method will harm the project\'s profitability and could force us to reconsider the certification project despite the fact that we are confident that we will obtain Silver certification. In addition, delaying the ESCO project will have an adverse environmental impact since it will mean that 1825 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually will not be reduced, which is 88% of the total CO2 emissions based on the energy consumption of the campus. The same effect is expected for NOx emissions. In conclusion, if we compare our data with the two different calculation methods for the ENERGY STAR RATING, we respect this prerequisite. This project presents a 34% reduction in consumption, about twice of the percentage needed to achieve this prerequisite. The second method consists of a percentile ranking of our campus. After the ESCO project on the campus, 93% of the 48 cegeps had a superior consumption per square foot compared with that of Sherbrooke\'s cegep, versus the 27% before the ESCO project. Reference:MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RECREATION AND SPORTS, Energy balances of the college buildings network, http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/ens-sup/ens-coll/Csom03-04-05.xls , accessed February 10." "What has been proposed above would not be acceptable for the LEED-EB v2.0 EAp2 Alternative Calculation Method. The following are minimum requirements of the LEED-EB v2.0 EAp2 Alternative Calculation Method: 1. A minimum of three months of metered performance period energy consumption data must be provided at the individual building level. 2. A Facility Historical Average Energy Use Baseline must be determined through metering at the individual building level. This should be based on the average of 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data within 6 years of the beginning of the LEED-EB performance period (See LEED-EB v2.0 Reference Guide 2nd Edition page 183, Step 1). A viable option for the buildings described above would be to transfer the LEED-EB v2.0 building registrations to the current LEED-EB: O&M rating system and use the EAp2/EAc1 Option B: LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Adjusted Benchmark Score (Submittal Template OPTION 2) compliance path. This approach allows building types ineligible for an ENERGY STAR rating to use an offline spreadsheet calculator provided by the USGBC to benchmark against national data and determine the number of points achieved. This approach would require only one year of metered individual energy data in total." "None" "None" "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" "5378" "2009-07-28" "Existing Buildings" "The project is seeking LEED-EB certification for a 640,000 square foot IT Research and Development facility. The facility is comprised of a large computer/server R&D lab and office space. The computer/server R&D lab area is 160,000 square feet, 25% of the building\'s total area. We understand that per LEED-EBv2.0 EAp2 CIR Ruling on 2/4/2008, it is acceptable to subtract the process energy consumption associated with labs and clean rooms or other high energy intensity spaces from the total building energy consumption only if these spaces make up less than 15% of the building floor area. In this case, the high energy intensity spaces make up 25% of the floor area and represent 67% of the overall building energy consumption. The project has achieved 30%+ energy savings on the lighting and HVAC systems. The 30%+ energy savings are reduced to approximately 10% savings when the plug load for the R&D lab space is included in the calculations. The high plug load puts this project at a disadvantage when compared to conventional office buildings and other building types. A subtraction of the plug load from the energy use total for high energy intensity spaces that make up 25% of the total building floor area would represent an alternative compliance path to achieving EA Credit 1. We request a CIR ruling from the USGBC to accept the compliance path." "Per the LEED-EBv2.0 EAp2 CIR Ruling on 2/4/2008, it would not be acceptable to subtract the process energy consumption associated with high energy intensity spaces from the total building energy consumption for high energy intensity spaces that make up more than 15% of the building floor area. Laboratory buildings still have the option of earning EAp2 through the EAp2 Alternative Path: Option B Approach. This approach requires an additional effort on the Applicant\'s parts to find the minimum three comparable buildings for the energy use calculations. As also mentioned in the same 2/4/2008 CIR ruling, an alternative Option B approach for your R&D 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 of buildings with a similar Lab Area / Gross Area ratio and climate zone. You can then calculate the corresponding number of LEED points based on this percent reduction. by the tool, calculate your project\'s percent reduction in energy use compared to the benchmark of buildings with a similar Lab Area / Gross Area ratio and climate zone. You can then calculate the corresponding number of LEED points based on this percent reduction. Applicable Internationally. " "1949, 2405, 2505, 2623, 5116, 5174, 100000676, 100000688" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5490" "2007-07-19" "Existing Buildings" "Background This credit interpretation request is in reference to LEED-EB requirements for a 497 000 s.f.g. Convention Centre located in Quebec City (Canada), winner of the 2006 AIPC Apex Award for the World\'s Best Congress Centre given by the International Association of Congress Centres. The Quebec City Convention Centre (QCCC) has for mission to welcome conferences, meetings and large-scale exhibits by offering an international convention facility. In the first project analysis for the energy performance prerequisite, we deduced that Conference Centres are not addressed by ENERGY STAR program. We did not find any comparable building in terms of use, square footage and localization. We thus chose the Option A for the buildings not addressed by ENERGY STAR (Reference guide LEED-EB, p.184). The procedure to determine the building energy baseline (Reference guide LEED-EB, p.183) specifies that the historical average energy use must be calculated from 3 consecutive years selected within the 6 years of the performance period beginning. The section Strategies & technologies (reference guide, p.182) show that the objective of this prerequisite is to encourage the owner to make improvements in the building energy performance either by commissioning or by doing systems/equipments improvements. In years 1998 to 2000, the QCCC carried out a series of actions (retro-commissioning) to decrease the building energy consumption such as: 1. Temperatures optimization of the air-conditioning and heating networks by modifying the coolant temperature according to the outdoor temperature in order to avoid the losses of energy produced by too large temperature variations. 2. Optimization of the ventilation and lighting system schedules operation according to events. 3. Employees educational program including practical actions such as: i. Using elevators instead of the service elevators ii. Closing the light by leaving the rooms iii. Informing the operations service when the ventilation is no longer necessary iv. Start up mobile escalators only in period of events. 4. Procedures to follow to reduce the natural gas consumption by closing some steam networks in summer period. The improvements made during this period of time showed an optimization of the energy performance close to 20% and are always in function today. Since the year 2000, the QCCC maintained this performance as required, for example, by a LEED-EB recertification. Calculations proposal These improvements made by the QCCC between 1998 and 2000 can be listed with supporting documentation demonstrating an energy consumption reduction close to 20%. QCCC kept this level of performance since year 2000 which represent a long term engagement to sustainable energy practices. Is it acceptable to push back the building energy baseline beyond the 6 years window as prescribed by the EA Prerequisite 2-Minimum Energy Performance? Our calculation methodology would be: - Energy performance period: April 2006 to march 2007 - Building energy baseline: o LEED-EB - 6 years window for historical data: April 2000 to march 2006 o Our proposal : - 9 years window for historical data: April 1997 to march 2006 - 3 years to determine the historical average energy use: April 1997 to march 2000 Is this an acceptable alternative calculations methodology to meet the requirements of the EA prerequisite 2 - Minimum Energy Performance?" "The six year window is mandatory for the alternative compliance path; buildings which fail to show a 10% improvement in energy performance or efficiency cannot earn the prerequisite. Applicable Internationally; Canada. " "None" "None" "X"