LEED 2009 Energy Performance update summary of changes | U.S. Green Building Council
Please upgrade your browser. This site requires a newer version to work correctly. Read more

LEED 2009 Energy Performance update summary of changes

LEED version: v2009
PDF
Published On: 28 Sep 2015

Total 10 commentsLeave a comment

Lead Mechanical Engineer, AECOM

I agree with the comments below that it would make more sense to change the reference to ASHRAE 90.1-2010, or at the least allow compliance with EAp2/EAc1 from version 4 as an alternate compliance path, especially since the prescriptive options will no longer be available.

Owner, LEED Consultant, C-Wise Design & Consulting Services

The energy code in Iowa is based on ASHRAE 90.1-2010. This may be again be increased in 2016 to ASHRAE 90.1-2013.
Half of current LEED projects are achieving gold or platinum certification. LEED-v3 is watered down. I anticipated that as soon as v4 was postponed, the code basis for v3 would have been upgraded to ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Just increasing the minimum points for certification does not compensate for this. In Iowa, just meeting the current state code would meet this requirement. It's embarrassing to explain this to clients.
The v3 baseline should be changed to ASHRAE 90.1-2010.

Why didn't they just make V.4 a requirement by January 2016. Once a decision is made, stick to it. While I understand wanting to keep projects as energy efficient as possible as a goal, this piecemeal approach is absolutely creating an atmosphere of irritation and hesitancy when it comes to the designers and contractors that already aren't excited about the LEED process. Trying to find people willing to work on a LEED job is becoming more and more difficult due to issues just like this. I feel an environment of LEED becoming more trouble than it's worth honestly. Honestly, I've seen the fact that savings is based on $ spent and not energy consumed has turned off so many people who were initially excited about the idea of becoming certified.

LEED Fellow, Re:Vision Architecture

Per http://www.usgbc.org/articles/public-comment-period-open-until-1113-leed-2009-energy-updates, "The effective date of this change will be 30 days after the ballot period, if approved." Ballot is set for this winter, so potentially it could go in to affect for all projects registered after the beginning of 2016. LEED v4 becomes required for all projects registered after October 30, 2016, so we're looking at abt. 10 months worth of projects being affected before ASHRAE 90.1-2010 becomes the new standard (NC projects would therefore go from the current 10% above ASHRAE 90.1-2007 to 18% above ASHRAE 90.1-2007 to 5% above ASHRAE 90.1-2010.)

To provide public comments (submit by 11/13) search for you Rating System here: http://www.usgbc.org/credits/all/2009-energy-update
and then enter your public comment at the top.

Master Architect, SSOE Group

This is achievable and in keeping with pushing the current standards for projects with less than 25% process energy loads.
Many commercial, non-office buildings have process loads approaching 80%. The gaps occurs where the guidance in ASHRAE Std 90.1 recommends the process loads be modeled the same for the baseline and design cases.
This means, by extension, these buildings basically need to be at netzero to be eligible for LEED certification (0% building + 80% process = 20% improvement). A 100% energy efficient building is a long way from a 20% energy efficient building.
If we do not provide better guidance for determining process energy baselines, LEED certification will be out of reach for buildings with significant process loads. Having more aggressive goals has merit and moves the mission of the USGBC forward. The risk is, without supplying useful guidance for handling process loads, LEED runs the risk of becoming a tool whose use is limited to the light commercial market. Is this what we want?

Architect / Director of Sustainability, Design Collective, Inc

Proposed changes would be reasonable if a background information how the new threshold are justified comes with the changes. Based on information I gathered, I am assuming ASHRAE 90.1 2010 is about 15% upgrade in performance from 2007 (generally speaking) but I'd like the reasoning behind this change to be scientific and clear to everyone.
Also, I was wondering whether it would be acceptable approach if project team choose to go with ASHRAE 90.1 2010 as their baseline, i.e. adapting EAc1 from v4 while pursuing the rest of project under v2009. As it is mentioned, a lot of jurisdiction already adapted IECC 2015, however we can't use the result of LEED energy modeling as part of our compliance document due to the difference in base standard. It would be nice if we can use one model for double duty. Will there be any consideration on this approach?

LEED Specialist, U.S. Green Building Council

Hello Seonhee: Thank you for your comments. I'm not certain whether a simple credit substitution will be integrated with this LEED Energy Performance Upgrade if it is approved, but the pertinent staff are aware of the need for clarification on this point. That said, there is already a form of "credit substitution" available as a LEED Interpretation (LI), as explained in the Ruling for LI 10421 (http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=10421). Note that this LI also opens up all LEED approved alternative standards for 90.1-2010 (such as Title-24 2013, Seattle 2012, Canada NECB) to be used with the same points scale.

McMillan Pazdan Smith, PL

The proposed changes seam reasonable. Defining exact dates for implementation of the changes (is approved) would be helpful to project teams.

A 14% energy savings threshold for certification is a step in the right direction, but not enough for the GBC to re-establish their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Using a 2007 code base, we're still 8 years behind.

Judith Holt Design

The proposed changes make sense.

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leave a comment Don't have an account? Create one

You must be signed in to leave a comment.