International Projects - alternative compliance path

Hi Susann,

Thanks for your comment. As Deon mentioned below, we are currently seeking feedback on the LEED 2009 ACPs for Projects Outside the U.S. via a quick feedback form on our website. It would be wonderful if you could also make your comments in the forms!

You can view the feedback forms on the LEED NC, CS, Schools & EB:O&M rating system pages through this link: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222 or through the LEED International Program page here: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2346.

Using the feedback forms allows us to more easily track user comments and suggestions, enabling us to integrate your feedback more efficiently. Thanks again!

Many thanks for your prompt reply Deon.

This approach will help us a lot for a project we have in Europe and struggling a bit with the floorscore....

Hello Eirini,

You are correct. All non-US projects registered under the LEED 2009 rating systems with ACPs for projects outside the US may use either the original credit requirements or the ACPs. Because ACPs are alternative compliance paths they are merely additional options for projects and not required for use. If the original credit language is more applicable a project may use that path.

If someone wants to cheat (or cut corners) in any system it can be done (See many real world examples beyond green building certifications). Maybe I've been lucky but every project I've worked on the people involved really wanted to create a more sustainable project and do it the right way, that's one of the great things about working in this space.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that many international projects just "bluff" their way through the LEED quality assurance reviews for certain credits; notably credits that involve electronic signatures and that are never reviewed by the USGBC a second time in the construction review.
EAp2 is a perfect example; a design stage electronic signature and no review at the construction as we say is pretty "easy-peasy".

You could try Bureau Veritas? I believe EU air leakage standards are generally much harder than US requirements.

Thank-you for your comments.
From what I understand to date is that the alternative methods are acceptable for NFRC 100, 200 & 300 if they comply with the LEED requirements.

The procedure that I am most "concerned" with the is NFRC 400 "Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Air Leakage".

In France we do air leak tests but they are quite different (temperature, pressure, flow rates etc..) from the NFRC 400.

Are there any instances where we can use the standard European / France air-leak tests?

Regards,

A little old but perhaps helpful-IEA-Issues paper for Policy pathway for windows and other glazed areas
This voluntary program has over 21,000 approved projects; however, limited NFRC ratings exist for commercial projects. This implies LEED applicants are using alternative methods to comply with the LEED energy and atmosphere requirement.
The USGBC’s LEED program requires numerous measures to ensure good environmental and energy performance. Window energy policy is embedded in the energy and atmosphere requirement by referencing ASHRAE 90.1-2004. As described in this document, ASHRAE 90.1 references NFRC 100/200 for window energy performance rating and requires maximum U-factors and SHGCs by climate zone. This is a mandatory requirement and the user may also achieve a higher LEED rating or score by exceeding the ASHRAE 90.1 minimum criteria.

As an energy modeller, I would say the manufacturer should supply this information. The NFRC norms contain more than just how to deturmine the rating values.

Now if the manufacturer won't supply this information, I can painstakingly construct the frame and window in THERM and WINDOW and produce the NFRC rating values, but I would still require engineering drawings in dxf/dwg and sections in the same of the element. As I don't do this often, it's probably going to take 1-2 days for me to do it and like I said, I'll need quite a bit of info on the individual elements constituting the assembly.

Ian,
Your energy modeler should be able to confirm the proposed envelope elements meet/exceed the NFRC procedures.

Hello Deon Glaser & welcome to International World of LEED!
Do you know of any equivalencies for the NFRC 100,200,300 & 400 procedures for International / European projects?
Regards,
Ian

Happy Friday everyone! As promised, we finally have feedback forms for the LEED 2009 ACPs for Projects Outside the U.S. available for you on the USGBC website. LEED is built on the input and feedback we receive from the green building community, and this dialogue allows LEED to remain flexible and responsive.

You can view the feedback forms on the LEED NC, CS, Schools & EB:O&M rating system pages through this link: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222 or through the LEED International Program page here: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2346. We hope to hear from you soon!

Deon,
Welcome to the international market. It's great to hear there will be a feedback form for us to provide input on the ACP's. For the most part the items I have reviewed are a good step forward.

Hello,
I know this is an old post but has the USGBC found local equivalencies for the NFRC 100,200,300 & 400 procedures for International / European projects?
regards,
Ian

Just to say, I've completed the process now with Energy Star for an EBOM project in Vietnam. A few small bumps but I received my rating and the energy intensity score as required. I did get confused due to some aspects of the Energy Star site. They said that my project could apply for the Energy Star Rating, but following that link, I quickly found that it is really only possible with US projects, or US Government-owned projects. It must be signed off by a US-registered architect or engineer. LEED on-line reponses clarified: What you need for LEED is only to generate the energy intensity and the comparison with other projects and that is done automatically and can be documented in a PDF format called an SEP, which is provided via another link on the Energy Star summary page for your project. This SHOULD also show the carbon emissions, but like others I found that it didn't show up on the SEP so I used a screen shot of the relevant part of the summary page to record the CO2 data. By sharing data with the GBCI I assume the rest is straightforward. The only other quirk I noted was that for some reason choosing my final data month didn't work (February), I had to choose January as my end month. I still don't know why, but this allowed me to generate the report as required. I have no idea if that last quirk was temporary/to do with my data/or otherwise, but its effect was minor. Hope that helps.

Sean,
Thanks for the quick response.

Thanks for posting that response, Eric. Also, thank you for noticing that the language is still included for EAc1. We will work to remove that language as soon as possible and update the rating system to reflect this.

Good news. Looks like it was just a mix up.
"Thanks for your question about EAp2 and EAc1 for EB projects outside of the U.S. The language stating that Case 1 was not available to projects outside of the U.S. was erroneously included in the Rating System with ACPs. The case IS available to projects outside of the U.S. and the box stating otherwise has been removed from the Rating System."

Jutta,
I plan on submitting a rather lengthy document to the USGBC once I review all of the conflicting documentation detailing my view on the impacts.
The current ACP document is totally different from the previous form. It would be nice if they would put version numbers on documents rather than October 2011.

thanks for the posting and this doesn't sound very encouraging at all!

i hadn't seen these and hadn't actually delved into these, since from all i heard at toronto and from all i read in the documentation guidance and on the usgbc website is that following the ACP remains optional: we may either use the ACP or the original credit requirement. maybe a formal clarification from international@usgbc.org would help sort this out?

The problem with Options 2B and 2C is the following:
"Enter at least 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data into Portfolio Manager, in addition to the current year's data."
ACP Problems:
OPTION 1. Benchmark Against Comparable Typical Building CASE 1. National Energy Data Available - No Data available
OPTION 1. Benchmark Against Comparable Typical Building CASE 2. National Energy Data Not Available - Finding three typical, comparable buildings with permission to use their energy bills. Requires 12 months of data.
OPTION 2. Demonstrated Energy Efficiency Improvement-The building must have at least four consecutive years of site energy data.
The certification process for some buildings just jumped from 12 months to 48 months or longer for buildings that are a few years old but didn't LEED certify previously....

Jutta,
The documentation is constantly changing and conflicting, but the original ACP EBOM documentation released around October 9th states the following:
CASE 1. Projects Eligible for Energy Star Rating-This CASE is not available to Projects outside the U.S.
CASE 2. Projects Not Eligible for Energy Star Rating OPTION 1-This CASE is not available to Projects outside the U.S.
CASE 2. Projects Not Eligible for Energy Star Rating OPTION 2-Note for Projects Outside the U.S. - Projects outside the U.S. can use Option 2 but are limited to Option 2B or 2C, as outlined in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance, 2009 Edition.
The original LEED EBOM manual states this:
"For building types covered by ENERGY STAR but located outside the United States, use Case 1 to obtain an ENERGY STAR rating. The Portfolio Manager tool provides a list of locations outside the United States, but it is not complete. If the location for an international project is not listed, consult ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendices B and D to determine a comparable US city."
The issue is that there is no national energy data available outside the US, like CBECS. See the excerpt from an EU energy research committee.
"Breakdown of Energy Consumption
Information on the average breakdown of total energy consumption for different end-uses in nonresidential buildings is not available for most countries or is limited for the other countries. In cases when information is available, most of the data refer to the last decade.
Breakdown of Energy Consumption in Different End-Use Buildings
Information on the average breakdown of total energy consumption for different end-uses in nonresidential buildings is not available for most countries or is limited for the other countries."

i haven't seen this per se - where is this documented? would be very keen to see this, since this would potentially affect us as well (haven’t run the numbers yet).

my understanding so far has rather been that international projects are now ALLOWED to use Option 2 to demonstrate compliance, which may make it a whole lot easier for some projects, while maybe not for others? international projects have never been able to use the ES PM other than for benchmarking, providing a score rather than a certificate.

Hi Reinhard,

It appears as though you are referring to the ACP Documentation Guidance Document. To be clear, this document is designed to assist project teams using ACPs to prove credit compliance in LEED Online. To view the ACPs themselves, please visit our website at www.usgbc.org/leed.

I hope this clears things up a bit!

Jean,

You can contact me through LEEDuser if you want and I'll get back to you.

Could you post me a web-link please? I'll follow it up. Thanks.

Jean,

I know a European QS firm who would be happy to provide you the costing service. :)

I disagree. Usually costing is done by a Qualified Quantity Surveyor. I'm not one of them, and the architectural firm doesn't have one that is familiar with the costing splits. Yes, a carpet remains a carpet, but into which category it falls is a problem. We in Europe simply have big problems with this. Architects working for the client often want as little to do with LEED as possible and are often downright unwilling to cooperate. If I, the LEED AP can't do it, it doesn't get done. That is the real life situation.

I agree, translating ASHRAE standards to other standards does seem more difficult. But the MR discussion reminds me of the early days of LEED (2001 - 2002) and calling every manufacturer, explaining LEED and asking questions. I know I wasn't the only one. But now we have manufacturers who understand the program and address it up front.

Here is a link to the MasterFormat sections names by Division. It is a long document and it is only in English but maybe it starts to help with the MR problem.
http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/MasterFormat/About-MF/n...

However the costs are categorized for a building they still all have the same material elements. Carpet is carpet in Germany, the UK, or the US. Revising the material cost budget may be an additional step that seems unnecessary, but it doesn't seem as difficult as completing an energy model or convincing the project to go greener?

Jean,

This is the opposite situation here in the US, the MR credits are fairly easy. How are these credits major headaches? Is it a lack of alignment with the CSI formats?

Hello Sean,

Thanks for your answer, actually i have sent this question to GBCI and waiting the answer.