Alternate Compliance Path for 50% Energy Star Rated Equipment?

Nancy,

I'm afraid the news isn't good for this approach. I did some CIR research and found several CIR's where people attempted this and the approach was denied by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Here's the text of the most recent one:

6/4/2009 - Credit Interpretation Request
The project team proposes an alternative compliance approach for the achievement of this credit. The intent of this credit is to "achieve increasing levels of energy conservation beyond the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental impacts associated with excessive energy use" (LEED-CI v2.0 Reference Guide). The intent of this credit leads the project team to believe that this should be an ongoing initiative beyond just project completion and occupancy.

Our project is a relocation that will include bringing computers, printers and other equipment from the existing offices to the new space. The project team feels that disposing of this equipment at the time of the relocation and buying all new equipment is not appropriate stewardship of materials nor is it cost-efficient.

With an ongoing approach to improving energy conservation as the key focus while still being mindful of the appropriate use of resources (both material and financial), the project team proposes the use of a phasing plan to shift to more energy efficient equipment. This phasing plan will apply only to relocated equipment and will encompass a strict purchasing policy to replace that equipment with only energy efficient equipment as prescribed by current Energy Star guidelines.

The project team will include, upon credit submission, a copy of the purchasing plan signed by upper management and a 5-year phasing plan that includes a comprehensive list of what equipment is included in the scope of the project (assessing inventory according to the spreadsheet template of LEED-CI EAc1.4) and a replacement schedule indicating the anticipated replacement timeframe and a replacement deadline for each piece of equipment.

Phasing plans have been used in many situations to promote the triple bottom line goals of environment, social and financial benefits. Some examples of successful phase-out plans are the Montreal Protocol for the global phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and many project-specific phase-outs of light bulbs (through replacing less efficient bulbs, like T-12 lamps, with more energy efficient ones, like T-8 or T-5 lamps, only after the old bulbs burned out and required replacement).

9/15/2009 - Ruling
The intent of EAc1.4 focuses on immediate decreases in energy use by utilizing energy efficient appliances as defined by the Energy Star rating system. Over the course of the five years of the phase-out the rated equipment would actually use more energy than the Energy Star baseline. The intent of this credit is to reduce the energy use of the project at project completion and while the proposed alternate compliance approach does provide benefits regarding re-use of existing equipment, it does not provide the energy savings to meet the credit requirements. A CIR dated 3/31/2008 for CIv2.0 Cr EA1.4 requested a similar approach. The existing equipment had to meet the equivalent Energy Star performance requirements at that time. If the equipment did not meet those requirements than it could not be counted towards the threshold.

We'll await that with anticipation. But for now, a reviewer will consider the current CIR ruling as Gospel.

Good find.

please refer to the latest Reference Guide Addenda posted by USGBC. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6394. (information can be found on p.16 of the addenda)

Hi Reshma,

Thank you in advance for your help. My question has to do with existing equipment brought from an older facility to a new project location (but with the same owner). The addenda and the Reference Guide are unclear as to if this old equipment needs to be included. Is it just new equipment installed for the new project location that is included?

The addenda language states: "Only new appliances and equipment purchased as part of the scope of work for the project need to be included in the credit for EA Prerequisite 2 and EA Credit 1.4." Is that true that only new appliances and equipment are included?

For instance, I am working on a project that is bringing over many computers from their old office, replacing some computer and purchasing some computer. Do the old computers, purchased prior to the LEED scope of work, need to be included under EAp2 and EAc1.4?

That statement seems to contradict the statement in the Reference Guide that encourages the replacement of old monitors with new ones by allowing a project team to use the Rated Power of the older equipment.

What about if you renovate an existing building, so same project, but not within the new "scope of work", do the existing equipment and appliances need to be included?

If you take a peek at EAc1.4 discussion on LEEDuser.com, Matt also asked a similar question a while back. We thought we knew the answer then, but the addenda made me unsure.

thanks!

Dear Lauren,
Thanks for the elaboration of the problem. USGBC will soon publish more guidance regarding the scope of the project. however, as of now it is safe to consider that existing equipment is not required to be a part of the calculations.
Thanks,
RK

I am having the same problem with a project in China and I am eagrly awaiting a clarification if computers and monitors and other office equipment being moved by the same tenant can be excluded or not and only newly purchased items are to be included. The Q is how do you document this in the submission to what is old and what is new.

Thanks John: So how this this work now If the entire office is moved with 120 workstations etc. How do I deal with the prerequisite as well as with EAc1.4 if no new computers etc are added?

John,

If it's truly the case that you have no new equipment, than I'd write N/A in the relevant portions of the template and write a detailed narrative describing your situation. If you have no new equipment, you will probably not qualify for any points under EAc1.4

Paul

Hi Tristan,

I think that there is still some confusion regarding old equipment from another office being transferred to a new office. Reshma, in her earlier reply from April, seemed to possibly allude to upcoming clarifications.

Further clarification is needed. Others have asked if, in the case that their equipment in their tenant scope is 100% old equipment, would they be ineligible for the credit altogether or would they have an alternative method to achieve compliance?

Also, if you read the credit language from the Reference Guide, the intent of the credit appears to want to give credit to the project team when they replace old equipment with new equipment. For instance, the language is written to allow project teams to use the higher rated power on more efficient replacement products. That intent seems to slightly contradict the latest ruling that suggests that the project team can exclude equipment outside of their current scope of work; for instance, if only new equipment is included than when would there ever be a chance to replace old equipment?

I've realized that the gist of the issue is how you define "existing equipment". The latest ruling per Rehma's response and the latest addenda seems to state clearly that "existing equipment" is currently excluded.

It appears that the EA Tag is working on this issue but if it is in fact the case that all existing equipment is excluded then it seems very few items would actually need to be included under EAc1.4 documentation.

For instance, if you had Business X moving from Office Park 1 to Office Park 2 with 200 items of old equipment and appliances and purchasing just 3 new computers, it seems that as it stands today, only the 3 new computers would need to be included under the documentation of EAc1.4.

Or in another example, Business X renovates their old digs into a new office and as their new LEED Renovation Scope of Work, they maintain 200 items of old equipment and appliances, while purchasing just 3 new computers, as it stands now, only the "new equipment" or the 3 new computers would need to be included.

This doesn't seem to match the intent of the credit and I think that this is what folks are struggling with.

Hi John,

I agree with your interpretation. If all 3 computers were Energy Star eligible and then were purchased as Energy Star then we'd get all 4 points according to my understanding.

Maybe someone from the USGBC will explain further. Until then, it appears that project teams could rather easily achieve many points under EAc1.4

Lauren