I recently completed a CI in an old building with a constant volume Interior and console heat pumps on the perimeter. As a result to achieve points under the credit EAc1.3, the prescriptive criteria option was utilized for equipment effeciency which adhered to the Core performance guide. The project was submitted and all supplemental units met the criteria, which as my understanding was project scope of work, and all that needed to pass. Below is a respond from the reviewer which is unique to any interpretation I have seen before.
"1.All HVAC equipment installed as part of the scope of work satisfies the relevant Core Performance Guide requirements AND the project scope of work includes either of the following: a) Air handlers with Variable Speed Controls complying with the requirements of the Core Performance Guide Section 3.10 and supply at least 60% of the total supply air volume used within the project scope, OR b) Mechanical equipment complying with the prescriptive efficiency requirements of the Core Performance Guide Section 2.9 that provides at least 60% of the cooling or heating capacity for the project scope. 2. The relevant criteria from the Core Performance Guide has been met for all HVAC systems serving the area within the project scope, whether or not the HVAC systems are installed as part of the tenant scope of work."
Has a new addendum been sent out by the USGBC regarding this credit? I haven't found anything in the reference guide or recent addendums to suggest the interpretation of this credit has changed to include equipment that's 60% of the project. Has anyone else seen a review like this? Would a CIR be worth the time and money? Thank you.
Geoffrey Eddy
PE, LEED APArup
24 thumbs up
August 29, 2011 - 9:18 am
Let me further clarify the question: The fact that 60% of total supply volume needing to satisfy the core performance guide criteria even though it's existing base-building systems has never been as aspect of attaining this credit. It has only been tenant installed systems, and that part is what I'm looking into. Thank you for your time.
Eszter Gulacsy
84 thumbs up
September 15, 2011 - 9:43 am
Geoffrey, this won't be of much help, but I have just received the same feedback and it completely baffled me. I had a project last year, which - in addition to the VAV boxes, diffusers, etc - had some stand-alone A/C units for the comms rooms. The reviewers agrees that the A/C unit was enough scope to qualify and awarded us the five credits for equipment efficiency.
Now, for a very similar project I get the same answer as you did above, requiring 60% of the heating or cooling load to be met by the mechanical equipment. This requirement is not in the Ref Guide and not in any of the addenda and contradicts the decision I received for pretty much the same project a year ago.
Does anyone have an idea what is going on? Has this requirement been published anywhere?
Eszter Gulacsy
84 thumbs up
October 6, 2011 - 4:14 am
Geoffrey, I put a question to the GBCI on this and apparently they published a "clarification" on the subject in June. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9603
Note that it's not on the CIR database, not mentioned on this site, and I have not received anything from the USGBC in a newsletter, so I'm not sure just how one was supposed to find out about it.
Also, because it's a "clarification", not an addendum, it is not a change to the system, i.e. it applies to all projects, whether they had been registered before this "clarification" (i.e. to you and me, a change).
Geoffrey Eddy
PE, LEED APArup
24 thumbs up
October 31, 2011 - 7:53 am
Adele, thank you for your time. I too reached out and received the same clarification. It appears now not only do all installed systems have to meet the criteria, but a majority of HVAC capacity has to either meet eitehr section 2.6 or 2.5.
Typically these changes are communicated during the LEED process, and area I would like to se changed as well. Thank you again.
LUCY WILLIAMS
PrincipalLucy C. Williams, Architect
40 thumbs up
December 14, 2011 - 5:45 pm
Thanks for the good dialogue on this. We also received the same review comment, having never seen this clarification either. Thank you for the link. Yet another silly and obscure update contradicting the reference guide...
Sue Barnett
PrincipalSue Barnett Sustainable Design
151 thumbs up
December 16, 2011 - 5:24 pm
Wouldn't it be great if the Review Team spent an hour with us BEFORE hand to say what they want to see rather than all this going back and forth wasting everyone's time.......I have this very same conflict of information on this very same credit, our reviewer has not mentioned this "clarification" yet.....
Eszter Gulacsy
84 thumbs up
February 3, 2012 - 3:45 am
I completely agree with Sue on this. It's becoming a bit of a farce that after passing two LEED AP exams and practically memorizing the Reference Guide, I have to check interpretations for every credit for each project, just in case there has been an update that suddenly requires something completely different (case in point EAc1.3). Even when you've done all this (why can't they just revise the Ref Guide instead?), the reviewers still manage to surprise you by pulling out a practically unpublished "clarification" that changes the whole picture and makes you look like a complete idiot to the design team.
I also think that clarifications like these that occur within the same rating system can hurt the credibility of LEED in the long run. Prior to the EAc1.3 clarification I had a project certified Platinum with just barely over 80 points, where we got 5 points for the equipment efficiency credit, even though there was one single split A/C unit in scope. Now, of course we would not get these five credits, because the clarification states that there would not be enough scope and therefore the project would only get Gold. The fact that this can happen within the same LEED-CI 2009 system is somewhat concerning.
Dylan Connelly
Mechanical EngineerIntegral Group
LEEDuser Expert
472 thumbs up
February 3, 2012 - 7:57 pm
FYI, I was just reading about this:
https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations
"All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations and Addenda posted BEFORE their registration date. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but is strongly encouraged."
Eszter Gulacsy
84 thumbs up
February 6, 2012 - 6:28 am
Dylan, yes this is what I thought too, so you can imagine my surprise, when I saw the review comments, requiring the 60% scope (published June 2011) for my project, which was registered in March 2011.
The GBCI's response was this:
Additionally, the document titled “Clarifications: CIv2.0 EAc1.3 Option 1: Optimize Energy Performance, HVAC” (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9603) provides the same basic scope-of-work/eligibility criteria as apply to LEED-CI v2009 projects (though it uses a slightly earlier version of the referenced standard). Although this document was published on June 17, 2011, it is published as a "Clarification", meaning that the requirements have not changed; it is simply a clarification of the existing requirements.
They seem to have created a loophole to their own requirements, by calling it a "clarification" rather than an "interpretation".