Ambigious application

Tristan, whereas some credits USGBC do stipulates a minimum requirement to earn RPC (eg. EAc1.1 min 15% LPD reduction), some are ambiguous. For EAc1.3 Option 1 specifically a case in example, is it enough just to go for equipment efficiency or do we have to do both equipment efficiency and zoning control? The RPC table in USGBC website doesn't say. Strangely for same credit but for Option 2, USGBC did prescribed that if we choose Path 1, we need 15% better than ASHRAE 90.1 and Path 2 is 30%.although in reality the MEP is going for same credit intent. I guess we can test it in an upcoming project here in China on how LOv3 treats the above scenario since it is hardwired to USGBC prescription.

I just got an explanation from GBCI: When a project earns a point in an RPC, it will receive an additional bonus point towards the project’s total points. No more than one bonus point may be earned through the achievement of an RPC, and a project can earn a maximum of four bonus points from earning the various RPCs. For credits with multiple thresholds (Such as EAc1.3), a project needs to achieve the entry-level threshold in order to earn the associated bonus point. In addition, for credits with multiple options, all options are eligible to earn a bonus point. For EAc1.3, Option 1. since project teams can earn points by pursuing 1 or both strategies, the project would earn an RCP by satisfying the credit with only one of the options. If the project pursues both options, still only one RCP will be earned.