What does "can include" mean?

That language does seem unnecessarily confusing. So I won't try to parse it, but will say that I have always understood that in a situation like what you describe, the ancilliary building must be included in all relevant documentation. I think that is the intent, and it does seem logical relative to LEED. Anyone else have a different opinion?

Not a reply, but an add-on. We have a big, non-occupied utility structure next to the LEED track building, within the LEED project boundary. Thre is no conditioned space, save a small control room that is only accessed occasionally,
This space was included as it is part of the same construction contract and therefore we will include it in all materials credits. I don;t think it has any other impact. So, do we include this in the gross building area? My instinct is NO, as it would bollix up all the calculations for EA and IEQ credits. Correct?

Susan, that makes sense. I would make sure that the situation is transparent to your LEED reviewers in narratives.

I have a similar situation on a project. One certifiable building and one non-certifiable building because it is less than 1000sf and has no FTE. However, it does have a small space that is conditioned; it does have an awning which provides shading; it does have a SRI compliant membrane roof, and it was built with recycled content/regional materials.

I interpret the above (including in material credits but not in EA and IEQ credits) as meaning that you can pick and choose which credits to account for the non-certifiable building. You say "the ancillary building must be included in all relevant documentation", but does that mean shown and explained why you haven't included it or does that mean actually always include it as contributing to or hindering compliance.

I can including the building in my LEED boundary but how can I include it in credits like heat island effect and recycled content without also taking it into account in the energy model and the ventilation calcs? Seems like USGBC would look at this situations as an all or nothing (include or don't include) situation, but I'm not sure the specific on how either of those options (e.g. leaving a black hole on the heat island site plan or completing an energy model for what is basically an electrical closet) could play out.

Thank you in advance for your assistance!

Lindsey, the ancillary building should easily be included in SS and MR credits. That leaves some EA and IEQ credits as possibly presenting complications. I'd suggest posting specific questions to those relevant LEEDuser forums.

Do you believe that the MPR #3 supplemental guidance statement, "the project team can include the non-certifying building within the project boundary in ALL relevant submittals that are allowed and appropriate for each individual credit and prerequisite, essentially treating the non-certifying building as an extension of the certifying building" allows me to include the ancillary building in the SS and MR credits but not include it in the EA and IEQ credits?

Amazing discussion!

We are working on a data center project. There is a detached security booth which is a non-certifying building (less than 1000sf). We have included it in all SS and MR credits. Since this ancillary building is regularly occupied...

I.the security booth needs to meet ventilation requirements ASHRAE 62.1
II.it also needs to meet comfort requirements (a minisplit will be needed)
III.it has to be included in the energy model
IV.the gross area needs to be included in PIf3

Am I right? Can anyone please give his/her opinion?

Gustavo - I think that your interpretation is exactly correct.
However, I do not think that anybody followed Tristan's February 2013 suggestion to post questions to EA & IEQ forums for verification.

Marcus Sheffer's recent response to a similar question in the LEED NC-2009 EAp2 forum concerning energy modeling and non-certifying space seems to confirm your bullet point III: "You must model everything that impacts energy use within the LEED Project Boundary." (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/EAp2#comment-52621)

Your approach seems consistent with the directive to treat "the non-certifying building as an extension of the certifying building."