Envelope Commissioning

In my opinion this would be accepted as an innovation. First it is innovative and helps meet green criteria and because few do it. Secondly it is normally accepted that if one uses a credit from another system, for instances borows a credit from LEED-EB and uses in in LEED-NC or borrows a credit from a future version of LEED (v4) it is accepted.

LEED v2009 specifically states that “comprehensive envelope commissioning may be considered for an innovation credit” under EAc3. I know this has been used on several projects.

Plus, there is an established pathway to success!

Since they use the language of "exemplary performance", then it would count to one of the 3 allowed. My opinion only!

On the 2009 EAc3 form - when you check the box for "Exemplary Performance" you are directed to "describe the standards and protocol by which the envelope underwent comprehensive envelope commissioning". So, Exemplary Performance it is.

Has anyone had success submitting envelope commissioning as a standard Innovation in Design point (not exemplary performance)? Our firm has a project that did not earn EAc3, but did implement envelope commissioning. We submitted this as a stand alone ID point, but the reviewer rejected the point because we did not earn EAc3 (and therefore could not earn the exemplary performance associated with EAc3). It seems like envelope Cx is a beneficial innovation strategy in it's own right. Does anyone have insight as to why envelope Cx must be contingent on EAc3? Reviewer comment below: The LEED Credit Form has been submitted stating that the project team has developed and implemented a Building Air Barrier Testing strategy. This strategy (exemplary performance for EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning) is outlined in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition. The requirement for exemplary performance in EAc3 is to conduct comprehensive envelope commissioning. The project team has provided documentation demonstrating the standards and protocol by which the envelope was commissioned, which meets the exemplary performance requirement. Test and inspection reports, photographs, specifications, and contractor submittal documentation has been provided. However, the base credit has been denied; therefore exemplary performance is not available for this credit.

Anya, very simply, BECx is the EP path for EAc3, and the LEED rule for EP is that to earn the EP credit you have to earn the base credit. Combine that with the fact that under IDc1 rules, you can't earn an ID credit for something that's covered in a regular credit, and you have your situation.I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know, but those are the rules... whether they are the best rules in terms of incentivizing the greatest good environmentally in this kind of situation is arguable, of course.

I agree with Tristan, in this case there is not a path to this point. LEED v4 did address this, in that they inserted AND/OR before envelope commissioning. So you can now pursue envelope commissioning separately than enhanced MEP services for 2 points.

Thank you, Tristan and Scott. That is what I gathered, and agree that whether those rules serve the greatest good is definitely arguable. However, I'm glad to see they've addressed the conflict in v4.