See the Resource Library for full ACP requirements and documentation.
See all forum discussions about this credit »
View the LEED v4.1 version of this credit »
View the LEED v4.1 version of this credit »
SPECIAL REPORT
LEEDuser expert
Marcus Sheffer
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEED Fellow
SPECIAL REPORT
LEEDuser’s viewpoint
Frank advice from LEED experts
LEED is changing all the time, and every project is unique. Even seasoned professionals can miss a critical detail and lose a credit or even a prerequisite at the last minute. Our expert advice guides our LEEDuser Premium members and saves you valuable time.
Credit language
© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.
Requirements
Whole-Building Energy Simulation
Analyze efficiency measures focused on IT load reduction and HVAC-related strategies (air-side economizers, hot aisle–cold aisle, etc.). Project the potential energy savings and cost implications for all affected systems. Follow the criteria in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance to demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed performance rating compared with the baseline. Use energy cost savings from both the building and IT to determine the total percentage reduction.Table 1. Points for percentage improvement in energy performance
New Construction |
Major Renovation |
Core and Shell |
Points (except Schools, Healthcare) |
Points Healthcare |
Points Schools |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6% |
4% |
3% |
1 |
3 |
1 |
8% |
6% |
5% |
2 |
4 |
2 |
10% |
8% |
7% |
3 |
5 |
3 |
12% |
10% |
9% |
4 |
6 |
4 |
14% |
12% |
11% |
5 |
7 |
5 |
16% |
14% |
13% |
6 |
8 |
6 |
18% |
16% |
15% |
7 |
9 |
7 |
20% |
18% |
17% |
8 |
10 |
8 |
22% |
20% |
19% |
9 |
11 |
9 |
24% |
22% |
21% |
10 |
12 |
10 |
26% |
24% |
23% |
11 |
13 |
11 |
29% |
27% |
26% |
12 |
14 |
12 |
32% |
30% |
29% |
13 |
15 |
13 |
35% |
33% |
32% |
14 |
16 |
14 |
38% |
36% |
35% |
15 |
17 |
15 |
42% |
40% |
39% |
16 |
18 |
16 |
46% |
44% |
43% |
17 |
19 |
- |
50% |
48% |
47% |
18 |
20 |
- |
Pilot ACPs Available
The following pilot alternative compliance path is available for this credit. See the pilot credit library for more information.
EApc95: Alternative Energy Performance Metric ACP
EApc107 - Energy performance metering path
[view:embed_resource=page_1=7489432]What does it cost?
Cost estimates for this credit
On each BD+C v4 credit, LEEDuser offers the wisdom of a team of architects, engineers, cost estimators, and LEED experts with hundreds of LEED projects between then. They analyzed the sustainable design strategies associated with each LEED credit, but also to assign actual costs to those strategies.
Our tab contains overall cost guidance, notes on what “soft costs” to expect, and a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of what to consider and what it might cost, in percentage premiums, actual costs, or both.
This information is also available in a full PDF download in The Cost of LEED v4 report.
Learn more about The Cost of LEED v4 »Frequently asked questions
The energy cost offset from onsite renewable energy cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisite. Can this cost offset still be credited to the proposed energy cost savings for this credit?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
Addenda
11/9/2020 – Updated: 12/7/2020
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2014 – Updated: 3/29/2018
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Add the following as a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
As of 10/1/16, please note the following clarifications for the ACP language in the LEED credit library:
1. Clarify that the metric is cost.
2. Clarify that CanQUEST does not implement many of the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 conditions.
3. Provide exemptions to a few 90.1 mandatory provisions, which are identified as exempt in the ACP calculator.
4. Provide guidance for projects with district energy systems – see condition #11 in ACP language.
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
As of 10/1/16, please note the following clarifications for the ACP language in the LEED credit library:
1. Clarify that the metric is cost.
2. Clarify that CanQUEST does not implement many of the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 conditions.
3. Provide exemptions to a few 90.1 mandatory provisions, which are identified as exempt in the ACP calculator.
4. Provide guidance for projects with district energy systems – see condition #11 in ACP language.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for code compliance. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013?
Ruling:
Yes, projects applying Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, and regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 may document additional energy performance improvement under LEED v4 EA credit Optimize Energy Performance as described below. The Appendix G modeling method must be used for the LEED submission, even if the Energy Cost Budget method is used to document local code compliance.
Projects may calculate the Equivalent ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Performance improvement as:
Equivalent performance Improvement = % better than ASHRAE 90.1-2013 + Additional Percent Savings
Projects subject to the v4 2024 update may apply the additional percent savings to each metric (cost, source energy, greenhouse gas emissions)
Where Additional Percent Savings is shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Additional Percent Savings for ASHRAE 90.1-2013
Project Type1 Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office 5%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 5%
NC-School 6%
NC-Health Care 3%
NC-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
NC-Hospitality 5%
NC-Warehouse 1%
NC-Multifamily 3%
NC-All Other 2%
CS-Office 3%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 3%
CS-School 6%
CS-Health Care 1%
CS-Restaurant / Grocery 2%
CS-Hospitality 3%
CS-Warehouse 0%
CS-Multifamily 1%
CS-All Other 1%
CI-Office 3%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 4%
CI-School 6%
CI-Health Care 2%
CI-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
CI-Hospitality 4%
CI-Warehouse 0%
CI-Multifamily 1%
CI-All Other 2%
1 Mixed use buildings shall use the weighted average Additional Percent Savings based on the gross enclosed floor area associated with each building type. Unfinished spaces not submitted in the CS rating system shall use the CS values. Data center space must always be considered “All Other”.
***Updated March 1, 2024 to align with changes in the LEED v4 Energy Update
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
10/14/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Data centers have large, complex energy use that is not as widely understood or regulated from an energy code perspective. Traditionally, the ASHRAE 90.1 standard has not provided any guidance on what the minimum performance should be for electrical distribution systems for data centers. Recently, ASHRAE published the 90.4-2016 standard that provides guidance and maximum electrical losses for two different size data centers (less than and greater than 200 kW) and for three different components (or segments) of the electrical distribution system (Incoming Electrical Service, UPS Segment, and ITS Distribution Segment). The standard also creates an overall energy efficiency metric, the Electrical Loss Component that is the composite of the efficiencies of each of the three components defined.
We are seeking confirmation that ASHRAE 90.4-2016 can be used to establish a baseline electrical system efficiency for data centers for the electrical distribution system. If approved, the process for documenting the Proposed Case electrical system efficiency would be to calculate each of the three component efficiencies, per ASHRAE 90.4-2016, and provide supporting documentation that outlines these calculations and includes back-up documentation for any equipment efficiencies used in that calculation. The resulting baseline and proposed case efficiencies and energy savings associated with the proposed electrical system design could then be summarized in a report or input into the USGBC Data Center Calculator to communicate the findings to the GBCI and review team.
Ruling:
The applicant proposes to use the Electrical Loss Component (ELC) calculated in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, Section 8 in lieu of the Electrical System Efficiency calculated in the LEED Data Center Calculator. In ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, the ELC is calculated based on maximum loads at two separate IT loads (100% and 50% of IT design load for Single Feed UPS; and 50% and 25% of IT design load for Dual Feed UPS).
The proposed approach is acceptable. However, if averaging the energy results for the project at 100% IT design load with the energy results for the project at startup IT loads, the ELC may only be used in conjunction with the 100% IT design load energy model, or with a startup IT load that represents 50% of IT design load for single feed UPS or no UPS configurations, or 25% of IT design load for active dual feed UPS systems. The documentation must specifically indicate the relevant maximum Electrical Loss / Efficiency Total from Table 8.2.1.1 or 8.2.1.2 of the Standard, and must be sufficient to confirm that the Electrical System Efficiency has been determined consistent with Standard 90.4:
a. Provide submittal drawings consistent with the requirements of Section 8.4.1.
b. Provide ELC calculations with the same level of detail as is provided in the Examples provided in Appendix C.
c. UPS Segment Efficiency: Losses shall be based on manufacturer’s stated losses based on manufacturer’s stated efficiencies per Section 8.3.1.5.
d. ITE Distribution Segment Efficiency: The longest path with the Electrical Component Efficiency: Indicate whether the rated or unrated equipment values have been used. For rated equipment, the values used in the calculations shall be the manufacturer’s numbers as derived from standardized testing per Section 8.3.1.9(a). For unrated equipment, provide verification that the efficiency values or losses have been verified per Section 8.3.1.9(b).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/10/2020
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California and subject to compliance with Title 24 2019. Title 24 2019 has requirements for lighting power density more stringent than those requirements in ASHRAE 90.1-2010, and unfinished spaces in our project will be subject to the Title 24 2019 requirements.
For LEED credit compliance, our team plans to follow ASHRAE 90.1-2010 modeling. How can we document credit for Title 24 2019 compliant lighting in unfinished spaces?
Ruling:
Building Type*
Unfinished Space Lighting Power Density
Automotive Facility
0.70
Convention Center
0.80
Courthouse
0.80
Dining: Bar Lounge/Leisure
0.75
Dining: Cafeteria/Fast Food
0.70
Dining: Family
0.70
Dormitory
0.61
Exercise Center
0.70
Fire Station
0.71
Gymnasium
0.80
Healthcare Clinic
0.87
Hospital
1.05
Hotel
1.00
Library
0.95
Manufacturing Facility
0.90
Motel
0.88
Motion Picture Theater
0.75
Multifamily
0.60
Museum
1.06
Office
0.72
Parking Garage
0.17
Penitentiary
0.97
Performing Arts Theater
1.10
Police Station
0.96
Post Office
0.8
Religious Building
0.85
Retail: Grocery
1.05
Retail
1.00
School/University
0.72
Sports Arena
0.78
Town Hall
0.85
Transportation
0.60
Warehouse
0.55
Workshop
1.10
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016 or later?
Ruling:
Project Type(NC = New Construction)
(CS = Core & Shell or unfinished space)
(CI = Interior Fitout)
Additional Percent Savings
Title 24 2016 /
Title 24 2019
Title 24 2022 (or later)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (v4.1)
TDV Energy (replacing cost & GHG metrics)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
Building Design & Construction (BD+C):
NC - Office
7%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC - Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
25%
29%
10%
14%
NC - Restaurant / Grocery
0%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC – School
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
NC – Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
NC – Hospitality
8%
15%
20%
0%
5%
NC – Warehouse
0%
28%
28%
10%
10%
NC – Multifamily (4+ stories)
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Multifamily low-rise (<4 stories)1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Single family residential1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Data Center
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
All Other (< 50% unregulated TDV)
0%
15%
15%
5%
5%
All Other (≥50% unregulated TDV)
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
CS-Office
5%
12%
16%
1%
4%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
CS-Restaurant/grocery
0%
13%
15%
2%
3%
CS-School
7%
15%
20%
2%
8%
CS-Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
CS-Hospitality
7%
11%
15%
0%
4%
CS-Warehouse
0%
21%
21%
6%
6%
CS-Multifamily
7%
9%
13%
1%
4%
CS-All Other
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
Interior Design & Construction (ID+C):
CI-Office
6%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
6%
6%
CI-Restaurant/grocery
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-School
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
3%
3%
CI-Healthcare
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Warehouse
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
9%
9%
CI-Multifamily
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-All Other
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/25/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
LEED Rating system adaptations allow adjusted point scales for existing building renovations, Core & Shell projects, and healthcare programmatic space types in recognition that a greater proportion of the energy consumption is either outside of the scope of the project, or more difficult to mitigate within the project scope.
In a colocation data center, the building provides space, power, cooling, and physical security for the server, storage, and networking equipment of other firms. Therefore, while the BD+C Data Center rating system is applicable to colocation data centers for LEED credits other than Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance, it most closely aligns with a Core & Shell project for Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance.
Can BD+C: Data Center projects consisting with at least 40% colocation data center space use the BD+C Data Center rating system, while complying with the Core & Shell Minimum energy performance percentage improvements, and applying an Optimize Energy Performance point scale that matches the point scale for Core & Shell projects?
Ruling:
Yes, colocation data center projects using the BD+C: Data Centers rating system, and whole building energy simulation may use the following BD+C: Core & Shell energy performance improvement thresholds in lieu of the New Construction thresholds.
• Minimum Energy Performance: Demonstrate a 2% improvement in the proposed building performance in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard).
• Optimize Energy Performance: Use the Core and Shell column of Table 1. Points for percentage improvement in lieu of the New Construction or Major Renovation column.
Provide sufficient information to confirm that at least 40% of the project gross area consists of colocation data center space.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016?
Ruling:
Project Type1
Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office
7%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
NC-School
7%
NC-Health Care
0%
NC-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
NC-Hospitality
8%
NC-Warehouse
0%
NC-Multifamily
8%
NC-All Other
0%
CS-Office
5%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CS-School
5%
CS-Health Care
0%
CS-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CS-Hospitality
7%
CS-Warehouse
0%
CS-Multifamily
7%
CS-All Other
0%
CI-Office
6%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CI-School
6%
CI-Health Care
0%
CI-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
CI-Warehouse
0%
CI-Multifamily
7%
CI-All Other
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
Documentation toolkit
The motherlode of cheat sheets
LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit is loaded with calculators to help assess credit compliance, tracking spreadsheets for materials, sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions, and examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects for you to check your work against. To get your plaque, start with the right toolkit.
Get the inside scoop
Our editors have written a detailed analysis of nearly every LEED credit, and LEEDuser premium members get full access. We’ll tell you whether the credit is easy to accomplish or better left alone, and we provide insider tips on how to document it successfully.
© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.
Requirements
Whole-Building Energy Simulation
Analyze efficiency measures focused on IT load reduction and HVAC-related strategies (air-side economizers, hot aisle–cold aisle, etc.). Project the potential energy savings and cost implications for all affected systems. Follow the criteria in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance to demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed performance rating compared with the baseline. Use energy cost savings from both the building and IT to determine the total percentage reduction.Table 1. Points for percentage improvement in energy performance
New Construction |
Major Renovation |
Core and Shell |
Points (except Schools, Healthcare) |
Points Healthcare |
Points Schools |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6% |
4% |
3% |
1 |
3 |
1 |
8% |
6% |
5% |
2 |
4 |
2 |
10% |
8% |
7% |
3 |
5 |
3 |
12% |
10% |
9% |
4 |
6 |
4 |
14% |
12% |
11% |
5 |
7 |
5 |
16% |
14% |
13% |
6 |
8 |
6 |
18% |
16% |
15% |
7 |
9 |
7 |
20% |
18% |
17% |
8 |
10 |
8 |
22% |
20% |
19% |
9 |
11 |
9 |
24% |
22% |
21% |
10 |
12 |
10 |
26% |
24% |
23% |
11 |
13 |
11 |
29% |
27% |
26% |
12 |
14 |
12 |
32% |
30% |
29% |
13 |
15 |
13 |
35% |
33% |
32% |
14 |
16 |
14 |
38% |
36% |
35% |
15 |
17 |
15 |
42% |
40% |
39% |
16 |
18 |
16 |
46% |
44% |
43% |
17 |
19 |
- |
50% |
48% |
47% |
18 |
20 |
- |
Pilot ACPs Available
The following pilot alternative compliance path is available for this credit. See the pilot credit library for more information.
EApc95: Alternative Energy Performance Metric ACP
EApc107 - Energy performance metering path
[view:embed_resource=page_1=7489432]Cost estimates for this credit
On each BD+C v4 credit, LEEDuser offers the wisdom of a team of architects, engineers, cost estimators, and LEED experts with hundreds of LEED projects between then. They analyzed the sustainable design strategies associated with each LEED credit, but also to assign actual costs to those strategies.
Our tab contains overall cost guidance, notes on what “soft costs” to expect, and a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of what to consider and what it might cost, in percentage premiums, actual costs, or both.
This information is also available in a full PDF download in The Cost of LEED v4 report.
Learn more about The Cost of LEED v4 »In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit, for premium members only, saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
The energy cost offset from onsite renewable energy cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisite. Can this cost offset still be credited to the proposed energy cost savings for this credit?The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial » (If you're already a premium member, log in here.) |
11/9/2020 – Updated: 12/7/2020
Regional ACP
Description of change:
See the Resource Library for full ACP requirements and documentation.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/1/2014 – Updated: 3/29/2018
Regional ACP
Description of change:
Add the following as a USGBC-approved equivalent standard for projects outside the U.S.
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
As of 10/1/16, please note the following clarifications for the ACP language in the LEED credit library:
1. Clarify that the metric is cost.
2. Clarify that CanQUEST does not implement many of the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 conditions.
3. Provide exemptions to a few 90.1 mandatory provisions, which are identified as exempt in the ACP calculator.
4. Provide guidance for projects with district energy systems – see condition #11 in ACP language.
"Projects in Canada may instead demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline according to the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011. The same percentage improvement in energy performance is required to meet the Prerequisite, and the same points for percentage improvement in energy performance are applicable for the Credit.
The following conditions (where applicable) must be met. Note that unless otherwise noted, CanQUEST (the Canadian energy modelling software based on eQUEST that performs NECB 2011 compliance runs) does not implement these conditions correctly and would require corresponding modifications to the Reference case.
1. Comply with mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 mandatory requirements must be met, in addition to the performance path limitations referenced in the NECB 2011 Sections 3.4.1.2, 5.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.2. In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to.
2. Apply fenestration area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same FWR (as defined by NECB, including doors) for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed maximum. If the Proposed Design’s FWR exceeds the prescribed FWR, scale down the fenestrations in the Reference case accordingly.
3. Apply skylight area convention similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Maintain the same SRR for the Reference as exists in the Proposed Design, up to the prescribed 5% maximum. If the Proposed Design’s SRR exceeds 5%, scale down the skylights in the Reference case accordingly.
4. Model proposed and reference outside air similar to ASHRAE 90.1-2010
Proposed and reference (baseline) outside air rates shall be modelled as per ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010 (G3.1.2.6).
5. Apply ASHRAE kitchen exhaust demand ventilation requirements
Provide for the same demand ventilation requirements as described in ASHRAE Appendix G3.1.1.d.
6. Apply ASHRAE’s chiller heat recovery requirements
Provide for the same chiller heat recovery requirements as applies to ASHRAE.
7. Apply supply air temperature reset controlled based on warmest zone
Reset the minimum supply air temperature to satisfy the cooling requirements of the warmest zone, as stipulated in NECB Section 5.2.8.8. Note that this control setting is already corrected in CanQUEST for the Reference case.
8. Account for uninsulated structural penetrations if they exceed 2% of net wall area
The 2% allowance may be applied, but based on the net opaque wall area, not the entire building envelope area.
9. Follow ASHRAE/LEED rules for renovations to existing buildings
Model existing components consistent with ASHRAE and LEED provisions.
10. Account for all anticipated energy use in building
Fully account for all energy end-uses in the energy performance modeling."
As of 10/1/16, please note the following clarifications for the ACP language in the LEED credit library:
1. Clarify that the metric is cost.
2. Clarify that CanQUEST does not implement many of the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 conditions.
3. Provide exemptions to a few 90.1 mandatory provisions, which are identified as exempt in the ACP calculator.
4. Provide guidance for projects with district energy systems – see condition #11 in ACP language.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for code compliance. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013?
Ruling:
Yes, projects applying Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, and regulated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 may document additional energy performance improvement under LEED v4 EA credit Optimize Energy Performance as described below. The Appendix G modeling method must be used for the LEED submission, even if the Energy Cost Budget method is used to document local code compliance.
Projects may calculate the Equivalent ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Performance improvement as:
Equivalent performance Improvement = % better than ASHRAE 90.1-2013 + Additional Percent Savings
Projects subject to the v4 2024 update may apply the additional percent savings to each metric (cost, source energy, greenhouse gas emissions)
Where Additional Percent Savings is shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Additional Percent Savings for ASHRAE 90.1-2013
Project Type1 Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office 5%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 5%
NC-School 6%
NC-Health Care 3%
NC-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
NC-Hospitality 5%
NC-Warehouse 1%
NC-Multifamily 3%
NC-All Other 2%
CS-Office 3%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 3%
CS-School 6%
CS-Health Care 1%
CS-Restaurant / Grocery 2%
CS-Hospitality 3%
CS-Warehouse 0%
CS-Multifamily 1%
CS-All Other 1%
CI-Office 3%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery) 4%
CI-School 6%
CI-Health Care 2%
CI-Restaurant / Grocery 3%
CI-Hospitality 4%
CI-Warehouse 0%
CI-Multifamily 1%
CI-All Other 2%
1 Mixed use buildings shall use the weighted average Additional Percent Savings based on the gross enclosed floor area associated with each building type. Unfinished spaces not submitted in the CS rating system shall use the CS values. Data center space must always be considered “All Other”.
***Updated March 1, 2024 to align with changes in the LEED v4 Energy Update
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
10/14/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Data centers have large, complex energy use that is not as widely understood or regulated from an energy code perspective. Traditionally, the ASHRAE 90.1 standard has not provided any guidance on what the minimum performance should be for electrical distribution systems for data centers. Recently, ASHRAE published the 90.4-2016 standard that provides guidance and maximum electrical losses for two different size data centers (less than and greater than 200 kW) and for three different components (or segments) of the electrical distribution system (Incoming Electrical Service, UPS Segment, and ITS Distribution Segment). The standard also creates an overall energy efficiency metric, the Electrical Loss Component that is the composite of the efficiencies of each of the three components defined.
We are seeking confirmation that ASHRAE 90.4-2016 can be used to establish a baseline electrical system efficiency for data centers for the electrical distribution system. If approved, the process for documenting the Proposed Case electrical system efficiency would be to calculate each of the three component efficiencies, per ASHRAE 90.4-2016, and provide supporting documentation that outlines these calculations and includes back-up documentation for any equipment efficiencies used in that calculation. The resulting baseline and proposed case efficiencies and energy savings associated with the proposed electrical system design could then be summarized in a report or input into the USGBC Data Center Calculator to communicate the findings to the GBCI and review team.
Ruling:
The applicant proposes to use the Electrical Loss Component (ELC) calculated in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, Section 8 in lieu of the Electrical System Efficiency calculated in the LEED Data Center Calculator. In ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2016, the ELC is calculated based on maximum loads at two separate IT loads (100% and 50% of IT design load for Single Feed UPS; and 50% and 25% of IT design load for Dual Feed UPS).
The proposed approach is acceptable. However, if averaging the energy results for the project at 100% IT design load with the energy results for the project at startup IT loads, the ELC may only be used in conjunction with the 100% IT design load energy model, or with a startup IT load that represents 50% of IT design load for single feed UPS or no UPS configurations, or 25% of IT design load for active dual feed UPS systems. The documentation must specifically indicate the relevant maximum Electrical Loss / Efficiency Total from Table 8.2.1.1 or 8.2.1.2 of the Standard, and must be sufficient to confirm that the Electrical System Efficiency has been determined consistent with Standard 90.4:
a. Provide submittal drawings consistent with the requirements of Section 8.4.1.
b. Provide ELC calculations with the same level of detail as is provided in the Examples provided in Appendix C.
c. UPS Segment Efficiency: Losses shall be based on manufacturer’s stated losses based on manufacturer’s stated efficiencies per Section 8.3.1.5.
d. ITE Distribution Segment Efficiency: The longest path with the Electrical Component Efficiency: Indicate whether the rated or unrated equipment values have been used. For rated equipment, the values used in the calculations shall be the manufacturer’s numbers as derived from standardized testing per Section 8.3.1.9(a). For unrated equipment, provide verification that the efficiency values or losses have been verified per Section 8.3.1.9(b).
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/10/2020
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California and subject to compliance with Title 24 2019. Title 24 2019 has requirements for lighting power density more stringent than those requirements in ASHRAE 90.1-2010, and unfinished spaces in our project will be subject to the Title 24 2019 requirements.
For LEED credit compliance, our team plans to follow ASHRAE 90.1-2010 modeling. How can we document credit for Title 24 2019 compliant lighting in unfinished spaces?
Ruling:
Building Type*
Unfinished Space Lighting Power Density
Automotive Facility
0.70
Convention Center
0.80
Courthouse
0.80
Dining: Bar Lounge/Leisure
0.75
Dining: Cafeteria/Fast Food
0.70
Dining: Family
0.70
Dormitory
0.61
Exercise Center
0.70
Fire Station
0.71
Gymnasium
0.80
Healthcare Clinic
0.87
Hospital
1.05
Hotel
1.00
Library
0.95
Manufacturing Facility
0.90
Motel
0.88
Motion Picture Theater
0.75
Multifamily
0.60
Museum
1.06
Office
0.72
Parking Garage
0.17
Penitentiary
0.97
Performing Arts Theater
1.10
Police Station
0.96
Post Office
0.8
Religious Building
0.85
Retail: Grocery
1.05
Retail
1.00
School/University
0.72
Sports Arena
0.78
Town Hall
0.85
Transportation
0.60
Warehouse
0.55
Workshop
1.10
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016 or later?
Ruling:
Project Type(NC = New Construction)
(CS = Core & Shell or unfinished space)
(CI = Interior Fitout)
Additional Percent Savings
Title 24 2016 /
Title 24 2019
Title 24 2022 (or later)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (v4)
Added to ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (v4.1)
TDV Energy (replacing cost & GHG metrics)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
TDV Energy (replacing cost metric)
SOURCE Energy (replacing GHG metric)
Building Design & Construction (BD+C):
NC - Office
7%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC - Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
25%
29%
10%
14%
NC - Restaurant / Grocery
0%
18%
20%
4%
6%
NC – School
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
NC – Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
NC – Hospitality
8%
15%
20%
0%
5%
NC – Warehouse
0%
28%
28%
10%
10%
NC – Multifamily (4+ stories)
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Multifamily low-rise (<4 stories)1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Single family residential1
8%
16%
20%
4%
8%
Data Center
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
All Other (< 50% unregulated TDV)
0%
15%
15%
5%
5%
All Other (≥50% unregulated TDV)
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
CS-Office
5%
12%
16%
1%
4%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
20%
25%
5%
10%
CS-Restaurant/grocery
0%
13%
15%
2%
3%
CS-School
7%
15%
20%
2%
8%
CS-Healthcare
0%
8%
8%
2%
2%
CS-Hospitality
7%
11%
15%
0%
4%
CS-Warehouse
0%
21%
21%
6%
6%
CS-Multifamily
7%
9%
13%
1%
4%
CS-All Other
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
Interior Design & Construction (ID+C):
CI-Office
6%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
6%
6%
CI-Restaurant/grocery
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-School
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
3%
3%
CI-Healthcare
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-Warehouse
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
9%
9%
CI-Multifamily
7%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
CI-All Other
0%
Use v4.1
Use v4.1
0%
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/25/2019
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
LEED Rating system adaptations allow adjusted point scales for existing building renovations, Core & Shell projects, and healthcare programmatic space types in recognition that a greater proportion of the energy consumption is either outside of the scope of the project, or more difficult to mitigate within the project scope.
In a colocation data center, the building provides space, power, cooling, and physical security for the server, storage, and networking equipment of other firms. Therefore, while the BD+C Data Center rating system is applicable to colocation data centers for LEED credits other than Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance, it most closely aligns with a Core & Shell project for Minimum Energy Performance and Optimize Energy Performance.
Can BD+C: Data Center projects consisting with at least 40% colocation data center space use the BD+C Data Center rating system, while complying with the Core & Shell Minimum energy performance percentage improvements, and applying an Optimize Energy Performance point scale that matches the point scale for Core & Shell projects?
Ruling:
Yes, colocation data center projects using the BD+C: Data Centers rating system, and whole building energy simulation may use the following BD+C: Core & Shell energy performance improvement thresholds in lieu of the New Construction thresholds.
• Minimum Energy Performance: Demonstrate a 2% improvement in the proposed building performance in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G (or a USGBC-approved equivalent standard).
• Optimize Energy Performance: Use the Core and Shell column of Table 1. Points for percentage improvement in lieu of the New Construction or Major Renovation column.
Provide sufficient information to confirm that at least 40% of the project gross area consists of colocation data center space.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
7/2/2018
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:
Our project is located in California. To pursue Option 1: Whole Building Simulation, is there a methodology for documenting additional energy performance for LEED v4 projects regulated by Title 24-2016?
Ruling:
Project Type1
Additional Percent Savings
NC-Office
7%
NC-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
8%
NC-School
7%
NC-Health Care
0%
NC-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
NC-Hospitality
8%
NC-Warehouse
0%
NC-Multifamily
8%
NC-All Other
0%
CS-Office
5%
CS-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CS-School
5%
CS-Health Care
0%
CS-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CS-Hospitality
7%
CS-Warehouse
0%
CS-Multifamily
7%
CS-All Other
0%
CI-Office
6%
CI-Retail (except restaurant/grocery)
7%
CI-School
6%
CI-Health Care
0%
CI-Restaurant/Grocery
0%
CI-Hospitality
7%
CI-Warehouse
0%
CI-Multifamily
7%
CI-All Other
0%
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
LEEDuser expert
Marcus Sheffer
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEED Fellow
