How about considering the PNNL Re-Tuning Methodology as a pilot credit ?
It is a complete process - techniques and skills - and includes training of staff.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Shane Mason
Commissioning Services Project DirectorEnvironmental Building Strategies
18 thumbs up
July 13, 2012 - 12:09 pm
Mike,
I understand that you see the PNNL Re-Tuning Methodology as different than the requirements of Ongoing Commissioning. Please share what differences you see between the two sets of tasks.
Mike Barker
Principal : Energy / Electrical EngineerBuildingPhysics South Africa
150 thumbs up
July 22, 2012 - 3:13 am
Shane,
It's not that they are different. It was not my intention to suggest that it be a pilot credit in the sense that it's some thing different. It could be a extension to the existing credit then ?
In any case, it's more about the PNNL approach being a complete and self-contained process. Compliance and adherence to the PNNL approach should be sufficient with out requiring us to jump though more hoops in terms of documentation ?
Take the NC EAc1 credit for example - there are 3 different approaches that can be used - each option originating from a different organisation yet with the same goals in mind ?
I guess my argument also involves EBOM EAc2.1 too.
As LEED goes international, there is no harm in having many different options either, to cater for the different approaches around the world.