LEED CI 2009 states:
Project

Hi Michelle, Thank you for your question. Since LEED does not set standards, it must refer to other active standards. At the time that LEED CI-2009 was released, the current, active standards wer ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and Title 24-2005. Both of these standards have been updated since LEED CI-2009 was released. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 was released around December 2010, and the current Title 24-2008 was released in January 2010. For more information, please visit: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ It is likely that these new standards will be worked into the next version of LEED CI, but they do not apply retroactively to LEED CI-2009. I think that this is for good reason. It would be difficult to impossible for a project that is registered for LEED CI-2009 and had already been designed, documented, and is under construction to suddenly be held to a new standard that did not exist when the project was designed. Regarding your question on ASHRAE Lighting Compliance Interactive Forms, LEED does not require these forms for their submittal. If you are registered to LEED Online, you should be able to download the LEED Letter Template, which is the form that should be filled out. Does this help clarify your questions? All the best, Dane

Hi LEEDUser - First thanks for being an excellent resource. I'm making a general post of some thoughts here because I happen to be looking at this credit for a project, but I think it's a broader issue in how LEED works and how we view green buildings...this idea of "percent better than code". Dane - while I agree with your logic that we can't expect to move goalposts on projects midstream, I think there's a different issue at hand. The language for EAp2 in CI 2009 seems to penalize projects for better performance by making a more stringent local code the new baseline. So if a progressive state or local agency adopts an energy code that is X% percent better than ASHRAE, a LEED project there will earn fewer points, maybe even fall short of the prereq, even though it is going be more efficient than a building in the jurisdiction next door. If we were using local or regional rating systems, this might make sense, but LEED is national (at least!). This problem seems to be replicated in several areas across LEED and I believe it's being addressed somewhat in LEED 2012. The bigger picture, though, is that as codes get more stringent, percent-better-than-code becomes less meaningful, especially when that is one of our thresholds for labeling a building "green" or not. Seems like we should focus more on target EUIs.... Just some rambling thoughts - thanks again for all your insights.

I want to make sure that I am clear on the point of the Title 24 standard. Of course we need to follow the latest building code, Title 24-2008. We are planning to follow EAc2 compliance path option 1 "Whole Building Energy Simulation" which references California Title 24-2005 Part 6. I am assuming this is not going to be any issue. Anyone have suggestions or comments?

Hi Liz, I assume that when you mention "EAc2...option 1" you actually mean EAp2, in LEED-NC. This forum covers LEED-CI, EAc1.1. In any case, as your question refers to EAp2, your energy model will be based on Title 24-2005, a less stringent code. So this can only help. Without having studied the expected % efficiency improvement between the Title 24-2005 and 2008 codes, I would assume that additional efficiency improvements would need to be pursued to reach the 10% savings threshold for the prerequisite.