Rating System

LEED BD+C: New Construction, LEED BD+C: New Construction, LEED BD+C: Schools, LEED BD+C: Schools, LEED BD+C: Core and Shell, LEED BD+C: Core and Shell

Rating System Version

v2 - LEED 2.2, v3 - LEED 2009, v2 - Schools 2007, v3 - LEED 2009, v2 - LEED 2.0, v3 - LEED 2009

Inquiry

Our client is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) that focuses on the development and ownership of grocery anchored retail centers. They own over 450 retail centers nationwide with over 60 million square feet of gross leasable area. They are interested in adopting a company-wide toolkit that provides consistency in their decision making process as it pertains to energy efficiency and overall sustainable/green strategies, including a minimum of LEED-CS2.0 certification. The main objective of this inquiry is related to the development of a methodology for earning EAc1 points, based upon a customized set of prescriptive energy efficiency measures determined through the energy modeling of five prototypes in eight climate regions that are demonstrated to effectively bring about minimum efficiencies to earn at least two EAc1 points. Currently, our client has developed five different prototype buildings that are distinct to each of the five markets/regions that they work in: Northeast, Southeast, Central, Southwest, and Northwest. Below is an outline of the modeling methodology and a description of the documentation that would be provided for certification review. We would like to propose the following prescriptive methodology for each prototype building, in lieu of performing individual energy modeling for each project seeking LEED certification under LEED-CS v2.0 rating system. If the approach is not acceptable, then we would like to receive guidance from the USGBC as to what aspects would need to be modified to obtain approval. Methodology: Develop a customized process and methodology for identifying the most appropriate energy saving strategies for all core & shell prototype projects. The approach is to use ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G modeling methodologies to investigate various energy efficiency measures for each of the five markets and prototypes and develop and compile a list of prescriptive building related measures that mirrors ASHRAE\'s Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDG) Recommendation Table, but is customized to this developers specific project prototype approach. The intent is that only freestanding new construction core & shell buildings with individual HVAC systems are eligible. Projects that utilize energy supplied from district or centralized energy sources, e.g. district plant, would not be allowed to use this approach and must follow LEED guidance for projects using district supplied energy. Each market sector will be sub-categorized, as required, to correspond to one of ASHRAE\'s 8 climate zones. All prescriptive measures will be categorized to a prototype, a climate and to an orientation. The orientation will be determined by which way the building\'s main entryway is facing. All of the adopted prescriptive measures will be generated and evaluated using eQuest DOE2 energy modeling software. The software exceeds ASHRAE Appendix G minimum simulation software criteria. For consistency, the building\'s prescriptive measures will be grouped to correspond similarly with ASHRAE\'s AEDG structure. Below is an outline of how the building components with be grouped and categorized:  Envelope: Roof, Walls, Floors, Slabs, Doors, Vertical Glazing, and Skylights  Lighting: Interior and Exterior Lighting  HVAC: HVAC, Economizer, Ventilation, Ducts  Service Hot Water: Service Hot Water Heater LEED Submission: The documentation that would be provided to USGBC for LEED certification review would consist of the following:  A signed LEED Submittal Template declaring an alternative compliance path has been followed.  A copy of a CIR or other documentation from the USGBC approving the alternative compliance path.  A narrative describing the modeling methods and supporting that they conform to ASHRAE 90.1-2004  A comparison summary table demonstrating that the energy measures implemented in the project correspond with the required prescriptive measures.  Any additional documentation necessary to support the claimed energy savings. This customized approach for EAc1 will result in meeting both the intent and the performance requirements of the credit. Can we proceed with this approach and if not, how would we need to modify this approach to be acceptable to the USGBC?