You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forForum discussion
EBOM-2009 MRc4: Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps
See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 MRc4 »
Pin-based CFL's
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
See all forum discussions about EBOM-2009 MRc4
Subscribe to new posts about EBOM-2009 MRc4
Post a new question about EBOM-2009 MRc4
See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 MRc4 »
Jenny Carney
Vice PresidentWSP
LEEDuser Expert
657 thumbs up
December 29, 2009 - 11:59 am
I'm not sure if there's been any consideration of offering a similar approach to pin-based CFLs, but I think the main motivation for the screw-based allowance is to make sure this credit doesn't discourage a switch from incandescents to screw-based CFLs. Since that possibility doesn't exist for the pin-based lamps, there's no special allowance.
If you do happen to have a lot of pin-based CFLs that are pushing your picogram/lumen hour value up, you can always exclude up to 10% of lamps from the calculations (the credit only requires that you show compliance based on 90% of the lamps, based on the number of lamps).
Drew Johnson
LEED AP O+M29 thumbs up
December 29, 2009 - 1:19 pm
Thank you Jenny! Encouraging building operators to replace incandescent bulbs to CFL's makes sense. However, the lack of a similar exemption does seem to penalize a project building that specified and installed pin-based CFL's as opposed to incandescent bulbs during design and construction. Exempting 10% is a good suggestion, and the strategy we will most likely employ. Thanks again for your comments. They were helpful.
Richard Navarro
Google82 thumbs up
July 7, 2010 - 12:56 pm
Drew, so did you just end up excluding the pin-based CFL's?
We are facing the same problem for our project, and I was just wondering what you ended up doing for documentation.
Drew Johnson
LEED AP O+M29 thumbs up
December 20, 2010 - 4:50 pm
Richard,
I just saw your post from July! So this reply may be too late to be of much assistance. The project included 100% of the pin-based CFL's and was still able to achieve this credit. We worked with the operating team and two different lighting vendors, who competed to see who could maximize the mercury reduction given the existing lighting fixture and lamp schedule.
Richard Navarro
Google82 thumbs up
December 20, 2010 - 5:02 pm
Hi Drew,
No worries, thanks for the input though.
We ended up including the pin-based CFL's and were also able to make the credit.
So everything ended up fine.
Thanks again