Im having difficulty following the LEED online Templates calculations. Has anyone noticed inconsistencies? If I purchase 24 items for $4 each (total $104) that are 10% PCR the template tells me the sustainable purchases weighted value is $104. If I change the percent PCR to 11, it appears to multiply $104 by 10 and then by 11 (for $11,440). However, if I say the PCR is 30% it just multiplies $104 by 2, for $208. Any ideas what is going on?
Additionally, my vendor is telling me LEED EB rewards items with a higher PCR than the threshold of 10%, so 30% PCR's are given double weighting. Is this correct? Perhaps this is from an older EB version?
I was under the impression that it did not matter how much over any threshold you were only that you met the minimum and the weighted approach only came into play if your item fit into more than one criteria i.e: an item having the correct thresholds for PCR and Rapidly Renewable material. Any clarification would be wonderful!
Dan Ackerstein
PrincipalAckerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
819 thumbs up
April 14, 2010 - 5:53 pm
Although I haven't checked that template functionality recently and can't speak to the result you're getting, it is my understanding that USGBC does intend to increase the sustainability weighted value of an item as its PCR (for example) increases. So an item with 20% PCR would be worth twice as much as the same item with 10% PCR. In EBv2.0 this was not the case, but for LEEDv3 I believe this has been made more consistent across all rating systems. I think there is sound logic to it, although it does add complexity relative to the old yes/no system.
Wendy Gibson
156 thumbs up
April 14, 2010 - 6:49 pm
I did not see this mentioned in the reference guide. Is there a place where it is stated? It sounds like I may have a faulty template and that my initial thoughts were wrong. The percent of PCR does matter in weighting. Thanks Dan!
Dan Ackerstein
PrincipalAckerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
819 thumbs up
April 15, 2010 - 11:50 am
Frankly, I think it may not be in the EBOM Reference Guide, although the NC Reference Guide may address this more clearly. My understanding is that the logic is consistent with the idea that a product achieving more than one criteria should count twice - every unit of improved sustainability performance should benefit your project. It's a sensible evolution for the credit I think.