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" "10032" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "For two new buildings being constructed on a campus with an existing solar farm, is it acceptable to submit both these buildings for EAc2, provided that the total amount of energy for which credit is being sought is less than the amount produced by the farm?" "The proposed methodology is acceptable as long as the documentation is provided verifying what percentage of the solar farm is supporting each building and as long as the projected project cost for each project is consistent with the percentage of the solar farm that would need to be installed to support that building. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10033" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Is it acceptable to use a mix of 10% biofuel and 90% natural gas to meet the requirements of EAc2, and is there a minimum time period for which the biofuel must be purchased from the utility company?" "For biofuels to qualify, the bio-gas system must meet the requirements as per table 3 of EAc2 as per the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide and a signed declaration from the provider that clearly shows the source must be provided. The intent is for a portion of the building\'s energy to come from biofuel for the duration of its existence. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10264" "2013-01-01" "Existing Buildings, Schools - Existing Buildings, Retail - Existing Buildings" "In preparation for LEED certification over a year of energy monitoring has been conducted to establish energy usage and achieve EnergyStar certification. The owner is considering installing a PV system that will generate over 12% of its energy use (comprehensive evaluation of gas + electric). However, O&M states that the system must offset power during the performance period. Can EAc4 points be achieved based on system specifications that utilize performance period data for sizing rather than actual solar system performance monitoring?" "Points for EAc4 cannot be achieved based on system specifications that utilize performance period data for sizing in lieu of actual solar system performance monitoring during the performance period. Unlike the LEED Rating Systems for New Construction, Core & Shell and Schools, the LEED 2009 Rating System for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance is a whole building rating system designed to certify the sustainability of the ongoing daily operations of existing commercial and institutional buildings. As such, EB O&M is comprised of a planning, implementation and performance period measurements for each of the prerequisites and credits. EAc4: On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy, as its name implies, has two pathways to obtain up to six points. During the performance period some or all of the buildings energy may be met with On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy. If the solar PV system is not installed and operating during a portion of the performance period to confirm performance, the project team may consider the purchase of renewable energy certificates (RECs) to demonstrate credit compliance. In lieu of the commitment to purchase RECs on a continuing basis, a commitment to provide a percentage of the buildings total energy consumption generated on-site at the conclusion of the RECs purchase may be considered. That would allow additional time to complete the design and installation of the solar PV array. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1485" "2006-05-16" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This is an EAc2 administrative clarification ruling regarding the sale of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), valuation of on-site renewable energy generation, and separate ownership of the building and the on-site system." "In a previous ruling (EAc2.1 CIR Ruling 12-23-02), it was determined that the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from an on-site renewable energy system was prohibited if that system received EAc2 points. This ruling is an update and supersedes the previous ruling. This ruling also establishes requirements to be met if the building owner does not also own the on-site renewable energy system. To encourage the greater development of on-site renewable energy systems, the sale of RECs is allowed from an on-site renewable energy system that claims credit under EAc2 if the building owner or energy system owner, either separately or acting together, meet the following conditions: 1. They purchase an equivalent number of RECs equal to 200% of the system\'s annual rated energy output each year from another source, which must be Green-e eligible. The system\'s rated output must reflect all system performance characteristics as well as actual local site conditions (e.g., climate, mounting location and angles, etc.). The rationale for the 1-for-2 ratio is that many states have set Renewable Portfolio Standards and in-state renewable energy targets that can be traded in the form of credits. These in-state RECs are typically more expensive to achieve and typically cost a lot more (e.g. $0.05/kWh for New England wind power vs. $0.01/kWh for RECs from West Texas or Dakotas wind). From an environmental and financial perspective these are not the same for a couple of reasons: a. Emissions reduction impacts other than CO2 are less in remote areas than in the congested areas in state where population is concentrated and where RECs are largely purchased. b. Distant renewable energy generation may be stranded by limited T&D capacity. Given that in-state RECs create more benefits than out-of-state RECs for non-CO2 impact but equal for CO2 impact, it was decided to allow in-state to be replaced by out-of-state on a 1 for 2 basis. This allows green building projects to capture the value of RECs created by on-site renewables while resulting in net reduction of CO2. 2. The seller of the on-site RECs must fully follow all established guidelines for the sale of RECs and not claim any of the environmental attributes for the on-site system. Example: An on-site solar system in New Jersey produces 100,000 solar kWh per year. These RECs may be sold provided the building or solar system owner purchases 200,000 kWh of Green-e eligible RECs to offset the sale of the on-site solar RECs. The offset purchase must occur for every year in which the on-site RECs are sold and are in addition to any RECs purchased to meet EAc6. To determine the value of the energy cost savings in EAc2 compliance calculations, the project team may include both of the following components, each of which must be listed separately in the credit documentation: 1) the cost of the energy no longer purchased from the supplier because of the on-site generation; and 2) the actual and/or fair market value of the RECs sold. If an on-site renewable energy system is owned and operated by an entity other then the building owner, the following must also occur to receive credit under EAc2: 1. There must be at least a 10-year contract for the purchase of the energy output by the building owner. 2. There must be clear documentation for accounting purposes whether the purchase includes the RECs or just the energy output. 3. If the purchase does not include the RECs, the building owner or energy system owner, either separately or acting together, must make the 200% offset REC purchase referenced above for at least 10 years. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1495" "2006-05-16" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This is an EAc2 administrative clarification ruling regarding the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), valuation of on-site renewable energy generation, and separate ownership of the building and the on-site system." "In a previous ruling (EAc2.1 CIR Ruling 12-23-02), it was determined that the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from an on-site renewable energy system was prohibited if that system received EAc2 points. This ruling is an update and supersedes the previous ruling. This ruling also establishes requirements to be met if the building owner does not also own the on-site renewable energy system. To encourage the greater development of on-site renewable energy systems, the sale of RECs is allowed from an on-site renewable energy system that claims credit under EAc2 if the building owner or energy system owner, either separately or acting together, meet the following conditions: 1. They purchase an equivalent number of RECs equal to 200% of the system\'s annual rated energy output each year from another source, which must be Green-e eligible. The system\'s rated output must reflect all system performance characteristics as well as actual local site conditions (e.g., climate, mounting location and angles, etc.). The rationale for the 1-for-2 ratio is that many states have set Renewable Portfolio Standards and in-state renewable energy targets that can be traded in the form of credits. These in-state RECs are typically more expensive to achieve and typically cost a lot more (e.g. $0.05/kWh for New England wind power vs. $0.01/kWh for RECs from West Texas or Dakotas wind). From an environmental and financial perspective these are not the same for a couple of reasons: a. Emissions reduction impacts other than CO2 are less in remote areas than in the congested areas in state where population is concentrated and where RECs are largely purchased. b. Distant renewable energy generation may be stranded by limited T&D capacity. Given that in-state RECs create more benefits than out-of-state RECs for non-CO2 impact but equal for CO2 impact, it was decided to allow in-state to be replaced by out-of-state on a 1 for 2 basis. This allows green building projects to capture the value of RECs created by on-site renewables while resulting in net reduction of CO2. 2. The seller of the on-site RECs must fully follow all established guidelines for the sale of RECs and not claim any of the environmental attributes for the on-site system. Example: An on-site solar system in New Jersey produces 100,000 solar kWh per year. These RECs may be sold provided the building or solar system owner purchases 200,000 kWh of Green-e eligible RECs to offset the sale of the on-site solar RECs. The offset purchase must occur for every year in which the on-site RECs are sold and are in addition to any RECs purchased to meet EAc6. To determine the value of the energy cost savings in EAc2 compliance calculations, the project team may include both of the following components, each of which must be listed separately in the credit documentation: 1) the cost of the energy no longer purchased from the supplier because of the on-site generation; and 2) the actual and/or fair market value of the RECs sold. If an on-site renewable energy system is owned and operated by an entity other then the building owner, the following must also occur to receive credit under EAc2: 1. There must be at least a 10-year contract for the purchase of the energy output by the building owner. 2. There must be clear documentation for accounting purposes whether the purchase includes the RECs or just the energy output. 3. If the purchase does not include the RECs, the building owner or energy system owner, either separately or acting together, must make the 200% offset REC purchase referenced above for at least 10 years. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1507" "2006-07-07" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This is an administrative ruling posted by USGBC updating the definition of qualifying renewable energy. This ruling covers two aspects of that definition." "First, the LEED-NC v2.2Reference Guide First Edition (October 2005) includes a clerical error regarding the eligibility of bio-fuels. Table 3, p. 199 only references electricity production from bio-fuels, whereas it should reference all energy production from bio-fuels. Any energy produced from the eligible fuels qualifies for points in EAc2, and any energy produced from the ineligible fuels does not qualify. Second, LEED-NC v2.2 uses a broader definition of renewable energy compared to v2.1 that provides more flexibility for project teams. This administrative ruling authorizes v2.1 projects to use any of the allowable forms of renewable energy described on pp. 198-199 of the v2.2 Reference Guide. The eligible and ineligible forms of renewable energy are summarized in the following tables: Table 1: EA Credit 2 Eligible On-Site Renewable Energy Systems " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1611" "2006-11-06" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "LEED Energy and Atmosphere Green Power Credit Interpretation Request A CIR Ruling dated November 2003, allows the portion of Seattle City Light\'s Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) certified electrical production to be credited towards satisfying the requirements of LEED-NC v2.1 EA Credit 6.0 Green Power. Since May 2003 when the Skagit Hydropower Project received LIHI certification, Seattle City Light began offering green tags to all retail customers through its Green Up program. Customers have the option to purchase a portion or all of their electricity supply from the Stateline Wind Power Project. Stateline began producing electricity in December 2001. Seattle City Light would now like to provide one renewable power program to LEED and other retail electrical customers that combines the portion of generation certified through LIHI, with the balance of renewable power provided with Seattle City Light green tags, in order to allow projects to meet the requirements needed to satisfy the Green Power Credits available across all LEED products. To define the portion of LIHI provided generation, the following table shows the annual contributions of the LIHI certified Skagit Hydroelectric Project (Gorge, Diablo and Ross facilities), total annual generation, annual averages, and three year averages for the first three years of LIHI certification. (Read in table format) MWH | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 3 Year Average (Headings) Ross MWh | 673,558 | 674,640 | 465,810 | 604,669 Gorge MWh | 854,491 | 855,132 | 644,060 | 784,561 Diablo MWh | 736,778 | 737,626 | 542,715 | 672,373 Total LIHI Certified MWh | 2,264,827 | 2,267,398 | 1,652,585 | 2,061,603 Total Seattle City Light MWh | 9,440,301 | 9,561,757 | 9,711,154 | 9,571,071 Percentage LIHI | 23.99% | 23.71% | 17.02% | 21.54% City Light proposes that LEED Green Power credits within the Seattle City Light service area can be satisfied through a two year contract with Seattle City Light in which 21.54% of the renewable energy requirement is met by LIHI certified power from the Skagit Hydropower Project and the balance provided by green tags from the Stateline Wind Project." "[Updated 12/21/2006] The applicant is requesting qualification of a Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) certified power for EAc6, Green Power. Renewable energy power sources are defined by the Center for Resource Solutions Green-e program. The proposed combination will be categorized as a Competitive Electricity and Utility Green Pricing Product. To demonstrate compliance with credit requirements any power supplied should demonstrate equivalence with the section IV of the Green-e Renewable Electricity Certification Program National Standard Version 1.3, as well as with all the requirements of CIR ruling dated 11/4/2002." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1679" "2007-03-15" "Existing Buildings" "The LEED-EB reference guide version 2.0, First Edition, June 2005, EA 2.1-2.4 states that up to four points can be earned by purchasing renewable energy credits based on a percentage of a the buildings annual energy consumption (60% for 4 points). It also states that a letter must be signed stating the intent to purchase the same amount or greater for the next performance period. If a LEED EB project uses a 3 month performance period, what is the minimum number of months that must be purchased to meet each of the point requirements, and may an additional innovation point be earned by purchasing a 5th point?" "Because the minimum performance period for recertification (the \'next performance period\') is one year, for initial certification the commitment to purchasing the same amount of greater of renewable energy credits must be made for a full year following the original performance period. In order to achieve exemplary performance for this credit, the project team must purchase 75% or more renewable energy for the same period. A single ID credit point would be available for this approach. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1743" "2007-03-28" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "The project owner wishes to purchase a green power product that is not Green-e certified, but is asserted to comply with the technical aspects of the standard. How do we document equivalence?" "Using a formal third-party verification program is not required, but projects are required to document to USGBC that their renewable supplier has 1) met the Green-e criteria, and 2) properly accounted for the eligible renewable resources sold. This documentation to USGBC must include some type of meaningful verification work performed by a qualified, disinterested third party. Example documentation methods to USGBC that meet this requirement include: a) providing a state-mandated power disclosure label from the renewable supplier in states with meaningful regulatory requirements for renewable energy disclosure and accounting practices, as well as meaningful penalties for violations; b) providing a green power scorecard or rating from a credible, independent entity that performs meaningful verification of green power characteristics and accounting practices. In either case projects must confirm that the third-party entity\'s regulatory or verification programs are meaningful, summarizing those programs to USGBC as part of their certification application and highlighting any auditing or other independent checks the program performs. Other documentation methods will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This ruling applies to all the LEED Rating Systems having a similar ""green power"" credit. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1744" "2007-03-28" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "What is required in order to document equivalence with Green-e certified power" "Using a formal third-party verification program is not required, but projects are required to document to USGBC that their renewable supplier has 1) met the Green-e criteria, and 2) properly accounted for the eligible renewable resources sold. This documentation to USGBC must include some type of meaningful verification work performed by a qualified, disinterested third party. Example documentation methods to USGBC that meet this requirement include: a) providing a state-mandated power disclosure label from the renewable supplier in states with meaningful regulatory requirements for renewable energy disclosure and accounting practices, as well as meaningful penalties for violations; b) providing a green power scorecard or rating from a credible, independent entity that performs meaningful verification of green power characteristics and accounting practices. In either case projects must confirm that the third-party entity\'s regulatory or verification programs are meaningful, summarizing those programs to USGBC as part of their certification application and highlighting any auditing or other independent checks the program performs. Other documentation methods will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This ruling applies to all the LEED Rating Systems having a similar ""green power"" credit. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1842" "2007-07-19" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "This is an administrative ruling posted by USGBC updating the conditions that must be met for a project to take credit for renewable energy under EAc2." "A previous ruling (EAc2.1 CIR Ruling 10-03-2006), defined conditions that must be met for projects to qualify for renewable energy credits under EAc2. This ruling updates the previous ruling defining alternative conditions for projects to qualify for EAc2 renewable energy credits. A project will be eligible to achieve points under EAc2 and qualify for renewable energy credits for the system under EAc1 if the project meets the following conditions: 1 The renewable energy system is installed within the boundaries of the project or on the project site. 2 The renewable energy system is connected immediately adjacent to the utility meter. 3 A 10-year (minimum) contract for on-site generation with the owner of the Energy System is established. 4 The RECs associated with the renewable energy system are not sold. 5 The Energy System owner does not count the RECs associated with the renewable energy system to meet a mandated renewable portfolio standard goal or provides the RECs to the project owner. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2400" "2009-01-07" "Existing Buildings" "We are pursuing the Offsite Renewable Energy portion of this credit through the purchase of Green-e certified Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). The intent of this credit is to ""encourage and recognize increasing levels of on-site and off-site renewable energy in order to reduce environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use."" The USGBC\'s guidelines in LEED-EB are not in synch with policy standards from Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) for Green-e Energy, WRI\'s guidelines for addressing Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions or general industry accepted best practices. The problem relates to USGBC in LEED-EB requiring the calculation of TOTAL LOAD from ALL ENERGY SOURCES(including natural gas, steam heat, propane, etc.) on the building energy use side to set the amount of offset; while Green-e Energy states that REC\'s cannot be used to offset anything other than direct electricity generation (scope 2 emissions). As stated on p. 15 of the Green-e Code of Conduct: B. Communicating the Emissions Avoidance Value of a Green-e Energy Certified Product Green-e Energy Certified renewable energy products must be denominated in megawatt-hours (MWh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh). Consistent with this policy, Participants can market their certified products as instruments to address the environmental impacts associated with the consumption of electricity. One aspect of these impacts is the indirect carbon dioxide emissions arising from the purchase of electricity generated through the combustion of fossil fuels, classified as ""Scope 2"" emissions by the World Resources Institute\'s Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The explicit marketing of Green-e Energy Certified renewable energy products as a means to reduce or offset emissions from anything other than the consumption of electricity purchased from the grid shall not be permitted. Additionally, every other LEED type (NC, CI, CS, etc.) only requires the project owner to offset some percentage of the building\'s electricity use. LEED EB 2.0 and LEED EB OM are the only versions that (mistakenly) include non-scope 2 emissions. We propose to earn EA Credit 2.1 by offsetting only our scope 2 (electricity) emissions, in the percentages outlined in the credit. This will provide consistency with other LEED types and, most importantly, align with Green-e and WRI guidance on the issue. Further, it would seem that fewer LEED EB projects are choosing to use green power than LEED NC, CI, or CS projects, due in large part to the higher costs associated with offsetting scope 1 and 3 emissions in addition to scope 2. Allowing projects to earn this credit by offsetting only scope 2 (electricity) emissions should actually increase the number of participating projects, thus encouraging increasing levels of off-site renewable energy (aligning with the intent of this credit)." "The proposal to offset only electricity emissions in the percentages outlined in the credit would not be acceptable to earn EA Credit 2. In order for a building to be considered climate neutral, all fuel consumption by building uses must be addressed including direct fossil fuel use. Secondly, in addition to climate neutral considerations, the decision to include total load from all energy sources as a basis for LEED-EB v2.0 EAc2 offset level requirements was made during the lengthy LEED-EB pilot program process to help address thermal energy sources and provide a better fit with the U.S. EPA\'s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Tool utilized for LEED-EB EAp2 and EAc1. In regards to offsets, with the release of programs like Green-e climate to complement Green-e energy, the USGBC agrees that Green power or REC purchases or the equivalent should only be used to offset electricity use, Scope 2 emissions. Scope 1 & 3 emissions from natural gas, purchased steam, fuel oil, or propane use should use carbon offsets, verified through a program like Green-e climate or equivalent. Concerns raised above regarding the encouragement of greater participation rates for this credit are always addressed as part of new EB rating system versions and could be accomplished by making adjustments to the required minimum threshold levels as readily as through significant changes to the credit requirements. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "415" "2002-11-04" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: Green Power (EA Credit 6.0) Credit Interpretation Request Washington State does not require electric utilities to provide retail open-access. The Seattle Justice is required to purchase electrical power from the local municipal utility, Seattle City Light. Seattle City Light (SCL) wants to prove a LEED electrical energy product that qualifies for the EA Credit 6.0 to any LEED project within SCL\'s service area and proposes the following approach: Seattle City Light estimates that the current resource mix includes 25-28% renewable generation as defined by Green-e, composed of low impact hydro and possibly wind and other renewables. The utility will certify the low impact hydro component, estimated at 25% of the total mix, through the Low Impact Hydropower Institute. SCL will assist projects to ""green up"" the remaining 25% balance in order to achieve 50% renewable energy content by facilitating the purchase of Green Tags for participating LEED projects. Projects may elect to purchase green tags from existing or new renewable resources from SCL, the Bonneville Power Administration or other providers of green tags. As a part of the Credit documentation, the Seattle Justice Center will write a letter attesting that the mix or renewables serving the LEED project meets the following criteria: 1. SCL supplied renewable power plus Green Tags are equal to 50% of the project\'s energy consumption. 2. The energy and green tag sources meet the Green-e definition of renewable energy, which includes wind, solar, low impact hydro, methane recovery, etc., and, 3. Green Tags purchased have not been double sold, as verified by contract or purchase agreement." "Per LEED Interpretation 0214-EAc60-122101, if Green-e rated power is not available in the project\'s region, other sources of green power may be eligible for consideration. The alternative source must satisfy the criteria of the Green-e program, which is detailed on page 163 of the LEED Reference Guide (formatted version of June 2001). Of the five listed criteria, one is based on renewable content of 50% of more. The alternative energy source must also meet the other four criteria. If the SCL product contains 25% low impact hydropower, certifies its low impact hydro power through the Low Impact Hydropower Institute, as required in the Green-e program, AND meets the other Green-e criteria, SCL energy could be considered \'equivalent\' to half of the green power benefit associated with Green-e products. The rest of the green power benefit would need to be purchased in the form of Green Tags for half of the building load. In summary, in order to achieve a Green Power credit for SCL product the following is required: 1. SCL must certify its low impact hydropower with the Low Impact Hydropower Institute. 2. SCL must write a letter stating what percentage of its product is comprised of renewable energy (including certified low impact hydropower). 3. SCL product must also confirm that the remaining green-e criteria are met (addressing emissions, \'new renewable\' power and nuclear power) and state this in their letter. 4. The project must purchase Green Tags to meet the difference between SCL\'s product renewable % and green-e renewable content of 50%. (i.e.. if SCL contains 25% renewable content, this meets half the requirement and Green Tags would be required for the equivalent of half the building load over two years to meet the other half of the requirement.) Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "538" "2003-05-05" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "APPROACH As a firm representing several projects seeking LEED certification, we respectfully submit the following Credit Interpretation Request (CIR). In an effort to achieve EA Credit 6 (EAc60), our firm performed due diligence and has identified a wholesale provider of Green Power. Although retail renewable electricity certificate (REC) products exist in the marketplace, these products are not optimal for high-volume purchasers. Potential purchasers of high-volumes of Green Power should have the option to choose a wholesale certificate-based transaction. Such transactions provide the high-volume buyer flexibility to choose the type of generation it wishes to support, the market from which Green Power is purchased (regulated or competitive), the location of the generation facilities, transparent price discovery, a choice of fuel-mix, and most importantly, flexible pricing structures. PROPOSED SUBMITTAL ELEMENT An element of LEED Version 2.1 EAc60 requires the submittal of ""a copy of the two-year electric utility purchase contract for power generated from renewable sources."" With respect to the Potential Technologies & Strategies described on page 32 of the LEED Green Building Rating System, it is our position that this Submittal's requirement of an ""electric utility purchase contract"" does not accurately reflect the type of contract, or financial agreement, entered into when utilizing the following certificate-based procurement strategies: a) ""Green-e certified Tradable Renewable Certificates"" b) ""other power supply that meets the Green-e renewable power definition"" Therefore, we request and propose that the following be added or deemed an acceptable EAc60 Submittal: ""a copy of the two-year electric utility purchase OR renewable electricity certificate contract for power generated from renewable sources."" The interim acceptability and/or inclusion of the proposed language, as part of EAc60 Submittals, is significant in that it accurately reflects the financial agreement between owner, tenant or responsible party, and the seller. Currently, the owner, tenant or responsible party can procure Green Power from sources other than an electric utility or power marketer, therefore we feel that the EAc60 Submittals should be adapted to clearly represent the distinction and to facilitate and encourage an open and competitive Green Power market. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION It is our Intent to encourage the development and use of grid-source, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis through direct payment and/or support to renewable generation facilities. The direct payment will be outlined in a financial agreement between the project owner, tenant or other responsible party and the owner or operator of the renewable generation facility. We intend to employ the services of a wholesale renewable energy broker to facilitate and structure the financial agreement(s) so as to select the least-cost renewable electricity and /or REC provider(s). Our Green Power procurement strategy includes promoting the development of new capacity through the sourcing of renewable electricity certificates in both competitive and regulated electricity markets, with or without the availability of a green pricing program or retail certificate-based products. Moreover, the Requirements set-forth in EAc60 will be met and/or exceeded in a brokered certificate-based Green Power transaction. The wholesale renewable energy broker will provide documentation guaranteeing the renewable generation facility meets and/or exceeds the criteria and requirements set-forth by the Center for Resource Solutions as defined in \'Attachment C: Green-e National Tradable Renewable Certificate (TRC) Standard\' (http://www.green-e.org/pdf/trc_standard.pdf). In addition, the wholesale renewable energy broker will arrange independent, third-party verification to guarantee the renewable electricity was produced and sold as defined in the contract or transaction agreement. Furthermore, a year-end audit will be performed by an independent, third-party accountant verifying that no double counting of renewable generation has occurred. It is our continued position that the proposed language for the EAc60 Submittal Element will promote the growth and development of the renewable energy industry and related sustainable markets. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Project Manager accept the proposed language referenced above and/or grant EAc60 credit to the owner, tenet or responsible party who submits to USGBC a copy of a two-year renewable electricity certificate contract for power generated from renewable sources." "The proposed power resale marketing strategy appears to meet the intent of encouraging the use of grid-source renewable energy, but the description of how this strategy encourages the development of new renewable energy sources is unclear. A project submitting for this credit would need to clearly document that the power purchased under this arrangement meets or exceeds the Green-e Certification requirements. Provision of a ""renewable electricity contract for power generated from renewable sources"" is acceptable provided the contract represents purchase of at least 2 years worth of renewable electricity for 50% for the building's energy load. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10389" "2014-07-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - New Construction, Healthcare, Commercial Interiors, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Existing Buildings, Existing Buildings - Recertification" "The project team is planning on installing a Cogeneration System that will take Biogas and turn it into Electricity to be used wholly on-site. The heat produced by this Cogeneration system will also fully be used on-site to preheat heating hot water and domestic hot water via a heat exchanger and potentially to power an absorption chiller.\n\nThe building will receive the Biogas from a local Biogas provider and plans to enter into at least a 10 year contract with this provider to supply enough Biogas to the building to fully power the planned Cogeneration system. The contract will stipulate both that enough Biogas will be fed into the pipeline to meet required demands of the Cogeneration system and that the Biogas will be metered to prove that the actual amount of Biogas supplied meets the contracted requirements at all times.\n\nThough the Biogas is not being piped exclusively to the site (contractually it is supplied exclusively via project ownership funds), it is transported directly to the site in the existing natural gas pipeline. This approach achieves the exact same net result on the Natural Gas grid as piping Biogas exclusively to the project site in its own dedicated pipeline and allows the project to avoid having to dig up 100s of miles of land and lay a brand new pipeline to the project, something that would have a significantly detrimental effect on the local environment. In an urban environment like where the project is located, there is little or no option to be able to refine and extract Biogas on-site or even very close to a site, so the approach the project team is suggesting is the best and most reasonable alternative.\n\nIs this approach acceptable in accordance with the Reference Guide and Addendum 100001081 (November 1, 2011)?" "Directed Biogas purchase is not considered on-site renewable energy based on the current EAc2 credit requirements, addenda and LEED Interpretations, because the gas consumed on-site is not the same as the biogas that the project purchased. Please note that the referenced Addendum 100001081 does not allow for the fuel used on site to be different than the fuel that was purchased for the project. The referenced addendum applies for situations such as landfill gas piped directly to the project from a nearby landfill, or wood pellets from wood mill residue that are trucked to the project. In either case, it would not be acceptable for the landfill gas or pellets generated from wood mill residue to be ""purchased"" by the project, used in another project, and replaced in the project with natural gas or wood pellets produced from tree tops. Also, note that NREL refers to directed biogas as off-site renewable energy." "10126, 100001081" "None" "X" "X"