No Cooling Tower pilot credit

Gail, have you pointed out this Catch-22 to the reviewer? It seems tricky!

Also received this comment and will be checking yes since the only comments we got were that we needed to include the survey.

Were you able to resolve this issue?

We got the credit on our project and I had simply clicked yes on the survey. 

I have few questions. Can any one please help -

1. How many points were awarded? The web page mentions 2 possible points, but a note in Requirements sections mentions – ‘BD+C and O+M v2009 projects may use this pilot credit for 1 innovation point’.

2. Since this is an alternative compliance path credit for WE, can another open pilot credit be applied in the Innovation section?

Hello Sushrut, 

WEc Cooling Tower Water Use that it is being attempted via an alternative compliance path using the No Cooling Tower path. If compliant, it will be approved for 2 points within WEc Cooling Tower Water Use. If this is the case, additional Innovation strategies may be attempted within the IN Credits. 

If attempting as Pilot Credit 94: No Cooling Tower the project may use this pilot for 1 innovation points. Hope it helps! 

Thank you. It helped a lot.

Bipin,

If I'm understanding your comment correctly, that means for a project with no cooling tower, you can either submit this as 2pt ACP for Cooling Tower Use credit OR a 1pt Innovation credit? Just want to make sure I'm clear on how ACP Pilots work.

Thanks!

Chris

Hello Chris, 

You are correct.  You can submit  within WEc Cooling Tower Water Use - Alternative Compliance Path: No Cooling Tower for 2 points or Pilot Credit 94: No Cooling Tower for 1 points. Not the both. 

Thanks! 

Hello all,

I just wanted to add a comment on the matter of pilot survey: in projects that are pursuing this credit as an ACP, I don't really see the point of filling the feedback survey and complying with other pilot credits requirements, since the credit is not being treated as a Pilot. Do you agree?

Hi Adriana,

I agree. If we are pursuing ACP then filling out a survey, and complying with other pilot credits seems unecessary and confusing. 

Hi ALL,

There seems to be some confusion here.

For LEED v4 projects this pilot credit must be submitted as an ACP for WEc Cooling Tower Water Use; it may only be submitted as an ID credit for LEED v2009 projects.

Regardless of the version of LEED, the survey should be completed and submitted. As for the number of points awarded, this should be based on the team's assessment of compliance and  thus be the points actually attempted. For LEED v4 projects, you could consider a LEED v4.q credit substitution since I believe the requirements are somewhat relaxed for projects without a cooling tower.

Cam, I agree with your first three sentences.  But I didn't follow what you meant on points.  The credit language states that if you pursue this as an ACP for LEED v4, you can earn the maximum number of points--for BD+C, you could earn 2 points.  LEED v2009 projects may use this pilot credit for 1 innovation point.

The value I could see in completing the survey when the credit is used as an ACP would be to inform a future Option for this credit.

Perhaps the survey question asking if you had achieved the credit could have been more clear. I think I can see what it is getting at. As you know the survey questions are specific to a small group of credits. You only need to complete the general questions and the ones for this specific credit (#94). Maybe that specific question applies to others of the credit numbers listed on the survey. If it applied to the specific credit # you were using and if you were able to achieve all criteria in the credit language and the calculations proved compliance, you would say that you had achieved the credit.
Or I could see another scenario. Alternately, let's say a the credit depended on adherence to the 2021 version of a standard and achieving compliant calculations, but you did not have access to the 2021 version, so you used the 2019 version and you also achieved compliant calculations. Theoretically, you would say you did not achieve the credit, since one criteria was not met. Or you may say that you did achieve it, since your calculation proved compliance. But I would always, in this case, give an explanation that the 2021 version was not available to me so I used the 2019 version for the calculation. I would say this in the survey in a dialogue box, as well as within the credit documentation. In some cases the 2019 version or 2021 version may not make a difference, but in other cases, it well could be the determining factor in achieving compliance.