M&V case 2: System required to be monitored not installed

Yes, there are serious problems with the EAc3 CI language on a number of levels. Rather than reusing/rehashing the NC 2.0/2.1 language as Julian points out above, Case 2 should have adapted the 2009 BD&C EAc5 language (also used for NC 2.2). It cites IPMVP Vol. III with specific guidance for the available options (Option C makes little sense for CI) and dispenses with the arguably flawed "old" list of prescriptive requirements. Instead, Vol. III inherently provides the necessary flexibility and discretion to deal with projects, including CI, on an individual basis.

The USGBC is aware of these problems and this posting will prompt me to follow up to see if any resolution has been reached regarding a correction. In terms of immediate advice, I would suggest following the 2009 BD&C EAc5 language (using IPMVP Vol. III) and adapting it accordingly. I can also confirm that the CI RG requirement for IPMVP compliance for Case 1 is also an error.

Has there been any more movement by USGBC to clarify the language?

I know that this is something on the proverbial bike rack, but I am not aware of any more movement on it. Having said this, I also know that the USGBC staff has its hands full with LEED 2012 as well as other initiatives/issues. Perhaps a few communications with the USGBC on this matter would help to move it up the priority scale.

Searching through the internet, I found this document of the minute of a EA Technical Advisory Group meeting that took place on April 7 2011.
In point 4, the TAG "discussed a proposed addendum to LEED 2009 for CI EAc3 Case 2. Language in this version regarding submetering was not carried properly from CIv2.2, and the TAG agreed that alignment with 2009 BD&C EAc5 was necessary. A motion to approve an addendum for EAc3 clarifying the requirements was made by Nathan Gauthier and seconded by Gord Shymko. Motion approved by consent."

So it looks like an addenda was approved but it never came out. DO you think this can be considered as precedent setting?

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9386

I received the following comment from Gord via email":As you will note, I was part of that TAG discussion. It occurred just before the end of my term with the EA TAG. Unfortunately the purview of the TAG is limited. While the motion supports amending/correcting the language, there are other hurdles and committees that the change must clear. In this regard while the TAG discussion is significant, it by no means makes the change "official".

Thanks for the advice Tristan and Gordon. I already wrote to the USGBC regarding this matter, insisting on the need to make an addendum about in this item. My arguments were the TAG meeting's suggestion and the fact that one of the topics that are more important now a days is performance measuring. Therefore it's necessary to be clear in the credits regarding this topic.

I hope others will follow Gordon's advice as well.

Luis,

If you want to make this an official part of LEED you might consider submitting a LEED Interpretation.

Hi everyone;
Some days ago, USGBC answered my inquiry regarding Case 2, and the TAG suggestion.

Here is their answer:
"Dear Luis Miguel,

Thank you for your inquiry.

We are currently working on revised language for this credit. Changes will be published in the April 1st release.

Thank you for your patience."

So, as you can see we need to wait till April 1st to find out what will happen with this credit.