If you have fixtures both within and outside your space to serve tenants and you are pursuing WEcr1, what is the documentation rationale for not including the "outside" fixtures in WEpr1 and then duplicating all the same information in WEcr1 to add them back in?
It causes more confusion, more documentation and more opportunity for error. Why not just include all the fixtures in the Prereq? If you're going for WEcr1 at 30% reduction, you're obviously going to make the Prereq at 20% reduction with or without the fixtures. So it's not a matter of endangering the Prereq, and the water reduction shown in the Prereq is then meaningless and not consistent with the reduction achieved in WEcr1.
Can anyone explain the benefit to us of this approach?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
September 5, 2012 - 7:32 pm
Michelle, have you tried including those outside fixtures and run into problems with the reviewer? I would agree with you that this separation is not ideal for documentation, and if you have no trouble with compliance, it would be preferable to include them. I would be surprised if GBCI objected. I would think the other approach is more just as an option if teams really need it for some reason.
Carlie Bullock-Jones
PrincipalEcoworks Studio
LEEDuser Expert
220 thumbs up
September 5, 2012 - 8:50 pm
Hi Michelle,
This rationale ensures that the fixtures within the LEED-CI project boundary/scope of work/tenant control at a minimum meet the 20% prerequisite.
Otherwise it is possible for a tenant to specify a kitchen sink (perhaps the only fixture in their scope of work/boundary) that is really inefficient and does not meet the 20% requirement; however, the project team could then capitalize on low-flow fixtures outside their scope (fixtures utilized by the tenants in the base building) and potentially meet a 30% threshold and earn points.
Hope this helps clarify.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
519 thumbs up
September 6, 2012 - 11:40 am
Hi Tristan and Carlie,
I have been trying to follow guidance and credit form documentation requirements as literally as possible, because the reviewers tend to. It's frankly more of a hassle to go through all the review comments that follow from common sense that deviates from what checklist-oriented reviewers expect to see. Don't get me started on the current fervor for consistency among figures that simply aren't the same across different credits, whether it's FTEs, areas or dates. We are seeing dozens of comments along these lines. However, I guess I'm somewhat heartened Tristan that you would say that. I might try it on one of our projects just to see what happens.
And Carlie, I guess it never occured to me that anyone would pursue points on any basis while specifying something inefficient under their control.
In any event, thank you both for the response.
Kristina Bach
VP of InnovationSustainable Investment Group
151 thumbs up
September 6, 2012 - 12:27 pm
Chiming in - Carlie is definitely right.
Part of the confusion probably comes from the July 19, 2010 Addenda which created a distinction between which fixtures are applicable to WEp1 vs WEc1 in LEED-CI. That addenda changed which fixtures were applicable to which calculations and so therefore different calculations have to be provided for each.
In WEpc1, the addendum limits WEp1 to only the fixtures in the tenant's actual control. I believe the reasoning is that this allows any project to still be eligible for LEED-CI certification as they aren't negatively impacted by any poor-performing base building fixtures. Since the prerequisite is then only based on the fixtures in their control, theoretically any project could always make sure they met the minimum 20% reduction by being careful about which fixtures they chose and installed. As such, however, projects aren't allowed to claim savings in the prerequisite for any high-performing base building fixtures as those fixtures are not within the actual tenant scope and therefore those fixtures are no longer applicable to the prerequisite.
In WEc1, however, the addendum expanded it to all fixtures that the tenants will utilize - regardless of where those fixtures are located or who provides them or whether they're new or existing. This ensures that the points are awarded based on the actual efficiency and water savings of the project when looking at the holistic water use. For poor-performing base buildings, CI projects can still meet the prerequisite and pursue certification; they just might not earn any points. For high-performing base buildings, CI projects have the benefit of additional savings and points essentially as a "reward" for selecting that base building.
That's probably the simplest way I've seen the explaination for post-July 19, 2010 Addenda projects:
WEp1 --- only the stuff that is inside your LEED-CI Project Boundary (i.e. generally just the stuff you spec and install)
WEc1 --- anything that the tenant will use regardless of where it is and whether it's new or existing (this will include all fixtures in WEp1 plus any additional base building/other fixtures)
If you registered after that addenda, you could fully expect to receive review comments back in WEp1 if you happened to include those outside fixtures (as those fixtures just aren't applicable to WEp1 anymore per that addenda). I have seen it go both ways - sometimes reviewers will recalculate for you if they can award the prerequisite still or sometimes it being a standard issue to address before the Final when there are additional issues/can't be readily recalculated. Generally, if you try to stick to that basic breakdown of what belongs where, you'll have better luck avoiding any more of those long comments about the addenda/scope difference.
Best of luck!
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
519 thumbs up
September 6, 2012 - 1:12 pm
Thanks Kristina, that's how I understand the addendum also. It just doesn't make sense to me (if you know you are pursuing both WEpr1 and WEcr1, i.e., Case 3) to create an artificial distinction in the documentation that shows two different outcomes. As we know, consistency is key and yet here we are forced to create two inconsistent water reduction documents for the same project.
On one of my projects, this means a WEpr1 with all fixtures except showers and a WEcr1 with all those same fixtures duplicated but with the showers added in. I found this to be tedious and a potential QC issue, but it does follow the "what belongs where" as you indicate. We'll see what happens. Thanks.