Conditions for LEED-CI vs. LEED-NC

Hmm, I am a bit confused with regard to two statements. The first paragraph indicates that LEED-CI is appropriate for interior spaces undergoing alterations for at least 60% of the certifying gross floor area. However, statement two seems to contradict this? I guess I am not understanding the intent of this rating system or nor fully understanding what constitutes "New Construction and Major Renovation"? I though that LEED-CI was appropriate for Tenant Improvement projects?
I have a 25,000 SF shell and the entire floor space will be remodeled (100%). I have already regstered the project under the LEED-CI rating system and this sounds like a major issue, or mistake on my part.

Yes, I did use the Rating Selector tool when I set this project up. I guess I will contact them and find out for certain.

It may be helpful to look at the recently provided definitions of "major renovation," "alteration," and "improvement" in the Version 1 LEED Rating System Selection Policy revised on February 1, 2010 and available at
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6667

"Alteration: Also known as a fit-out. Includes improvement work in addition to the rearrangement of any interior space by the construction of non-bearing walls, partitions, ceilings, and floors, the addition or elimination of any interior door or window, the extension or rearrangement of any MEP or service system (peripheral or core), the installation of any additional equipment or fixtures. Typically work does not extend to the primary structural components, exterior shell, or roof of the building."

"Improvement: The restoration or application of interior finishes and fixtures, MEP and service system equipment repair/replacement/upgrades, minor space-use changes, and preventative or corrective maintenance."

"Fit-out, Interior Fit-Out: See ‘alteration’."

"Major Renovation: Includes extensive alteration work in addition to work on the exterior shell of the building and/or primary structural components and/or the core and peripheral MEP and service systems and/or site work....."

Though there doesn't seem to be a definition of "new construction" one might assume that to mean ground-up construction or additions. Since alterations and fit-outs seem to be excluded from counting as "major renovation," it would seem reasonable to exclude them from "new construction" especially if there is no structural or site work done.

One might interpret these definitons to say that even if a tenant leases more than 90% of the space, or is the owner, if the work is only an Alteration or Tenant Fit-out, then the second statement Tristan quoted does not apply, and CI should be pursued.

Would others agree with this interpretation?

This would be appear to be consistent with the 2009 CI Rating System Introduction under "When to Use CI" that says CI " addresses the specifics of tenant spaces primarily in office, retail, and institutional buildings. Tenants who lease the space or do not occupy the entire building are eligible. LEED CI was designed to work hand in hand with the LEED Core and Shell Certification system."

We have a similar situation (albeit with more flexibility since it's registered under CI v 2.0...)

I understand the reasoning for the 2009 rules listed above, but it seems like the reality is that if you're not touching the shell of the building, it's probably not going to be able to get to the LEED 2009 energy prerequisites (regardless of how much floor area is being improved). it's likely that these types of projects involve older building shells and I would bet that it would be difficult, even with the most advanced HVAC/Lighting systems, to overcome that disadvantage (assuming you even have enough info about the existing shell to model the energy usage in the first place!).

Seems like it could squeeze some potential CI projects out of consideration since NC probably won't work.

Interesting point - with older building shells and hvac systems, meeting the perscriptive requirements of 90.1-2007 can be harder to acheive, although without doing a careful analysis I can see a few possibilities:
A masonry building with punched openings may have better envelope performance than an early modern glass box with single, or even double glazing that isn't thermally broken.
And of the 37 available CI energy points, the bulk have to do with lighting power density, controls, equipment, and commissioning, with 5 - 10 points available for HVAC efficiency. Since enrgy modeling isn't required, I think there may be less disadvantage to overcome than we might see at first.

I totally agree and that's why we went for CI (remember - we're under CI v 2.0, not 2009). But my concern is that this building would not be eligible for CI under 2009 eligibility rules since the owner owns and controls 100% of the building space.

This is essentially an interior office remodel that added an HVAC upgrade at the last minute. Almost everyone concedes that this building wasn't even built to code when it was built 30 years ago - never mind having plans or documentation as to the glazing and envelope - so prescriptive and performance are not an option - therefore neither is NC.

Some would argue that LEED just isn't a good fit for this type of building and I could see that, but I could see a fair number of buildings falling into this "in between" category - especially if the economy is now favoring remodeling over new construction. could be a missed opportunity due to the eligibility requirements -- CI would be better than nothing.

It's been awhile since this thread was started and I suppose you've moved on, but here are my two cents. I had another question about LEED-CI, which I sent to leedinfo@usgbc.org. What I received in return is essentially a form letter which didn't help me much, BUT which may help you:

"So long as you can satisfy the prerequisites, the Minimum Program Requirements, the Minimum Program Requirements Supplemental Guidance and achieve enough credits for certification you may use rating system you and your project team feel would best suit the needs of your project. We recommend that you take a look at the Checklists for each Rating System. You can download those from this page: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222. Comparing these to each other will help you figure out which Rating System will allow the most credits for your particular project. "

In your case I gather feel that you cannot achieve the min. energy performance prerequisite of LEED-NC, if so you should be free to use LEED-CI. Even if you simply believe you will get more credits in LEED-CI you should be able to use it. At least that's my understanding; now if they had only answered MY question.

Chris,

That is definitely the philosophy we took. These questions aren't as interesting when we thinking about how to reduce the impacts of our buildings, but they become quite a bit more important when mandates are involved - such as a City requirement that all new City buildings build to a certain LEED level, for example.

I've heard of cases in jurisdictions that are requiring "built to LEED standards" where new building projects have shown equivalence with CI (ostensibly less difficult) instead of NC because the jurisdiction didn't specify which rating system.

i also recently sent a query into the usgbc on this topic and thought i'd share selected parts of their answer:
"The two points you identified from the Rating System Selection Policy (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6667) are intended to prevent a single entity with control of all or most of an entire building, whether a renter or an owner, from using LEED-CI when their project’s scope of work involved a significant quantity of “major renovations” and/or new construction. Therefore, entities that lease or own & control 90% or more of a building are not necessarily prevented from using LEED-CI to certify space within that building. As long as the work taking place under that entity’s scope of work only involves “alterations”, up to 100% of the building’s interior floor area could be certified under LEED-CI 2009. Even if the project involved work that went beyond “alterations” such an entity could use LEED-CI to certify the project as long as the more extensive new construction and/or major renovation work did not affect 40% or more of the building’s gross floor area. It is just the case that if such an entity was executing a project with a scope of work that involved new construction or “major renovation”, as this term is defined in the Glossary of the Rating System Selection Policy document, in 40% or more of the gross floor area of the building, the project would not be eligible for LEED-CI. Such a project would be better suited to LEED-NC or CS.

Therefore, if a tenant does not control the base building new construction, but will be controlling the fit-out (i.e. “alteration”) of their tenant space(s) within a new construction project, that Tenant is eligible to pursue LEED-CI certification for the entire interior space. Of course, the Tenant fit-out should be clearly delineated from the rest of the new construction project that is under the building Owner/Developer’s control in the documentation submitted for LEED certification review. ..."

Hope thats helpful!

That is helpful, thanks Victoria. Seems like a reasonable, albeit complicated, approach