In the 2009 Reference Guide, an alternative path that allows foregoing DES plant replacement through an economic analysis that shows DES replacement is economically unfeasible is clearly stated. No such language exists in the V4 Reference Guide. Therefore, it appears the minimum five-year phase out is required for CFC-using DES plants with no exceptions.
However, the V4 Reference Guide (and LEEDUser) states there is no change from 2009 to V4. Can someone please direct me to the language, or logic, that allows an economic analysis in V4, or is this, in fact, a change from 2009?
Many thanks
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Jeff Ross-Bain, PE, LEED Fellow, WELL AP
PresidentRoss-Bain Green Building
28 thumbs up
July 17, 2017 - 4:49 pm
To follow up on the above inquiry, I received a clarification from the GBCI that the economic feasibility study option used to retain CFC equipment no longer applies. All CFC equipment must be replaced within five years of occupancy, no exceptions.
There are a few disconnects surrounding this prerequisite:
1. LEED Reference Guide (V4) states feasibility study no longer allowed
2. Feasibility language is removed from the V4 Reference Guide
3. GBCI clarification response confirms feasibility study no longer applies
4. LEED Reference Guide [incorrectly] states "no change" from V3. This is actually a big change.
5. LEEDUser still lists the study as an option, which may need to be revised
6. Curiously, LEED-EBOM V4, still allows the feasibility study using all the same language as V3.
I have also requested that GBCI create an addendum indicating that there IS a change from V3.
Regards,
Trista Brown
Project DirectorWSP USA
449 thumbs up
December 8, 2017 - 4:02 pm
Thanks for this information Jeff! We've updated the content on LEEDuser to reflect this.
Jeff Ross-Bain, PE, LEED Fellow, WELL AP
PresidentRoss-Bain Green Building
28 thumbs up
December 15, 2017 - 9:25 am
Thanks for the update, Trista. However, you may want to look at one other thing: In the LEEDUser Document Toolkit for this prerequisite, the example CFC Phase-out Plan (PDF) still indicates the exception through economic analysis.
Nadav Malin
PresidentBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
839 thumbs up
December 28, 2017 - 1:43 pm
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for catching that. We've now removed the example CFC Phase-out Plan from the v4 credit documentation toolkits. --Nadav
Ryan Walsh
January 16, 2018 - 5:01 pm
So basically if a campus has CFC equipment, and will not agree to replace them in 5 years, than no buildings on that campus can seek LEED V4 certification? This has a potential broad reaching impact, are the people on this forum 100% sure this is the requirement?
Would it not be more sustainable to keep the CFC equipment in operation until its dead versus replacing it with brand new non CFC equipment that must be manufactured from materials, shipped, and installed in addition to disposal of the old equipment.
Ben Stanley
Senior Sustainability ManagerWSP - Built Ecology
LEEDuser Expert
250 thumbs up
June 20, 2018 - 6:25 pm
I just checked and the online version of the v4 reference guide and it confirms that "the compliance path for economic feasibility of a CFC phase out plan was removed from this credit."
Also, under the Project Variations section, the reference guide goes on to state that for district energy systems, "either all applicable upstream systems must be CFC-free, or a commitment must be in place to phase out CFC-based refrigerants with a firm timeline of five years from substantial completion of the LEED project."
Given that, I believe that buildings located on a campus that couldn't make a commitment to phase out CFC-based refrigerants, couldn't meet this prerequisite.