Change in WEc4 in LEED 3.0 vs. 2.0/2.2

Shannon, please see Lauren's link above. But the real way to clarify it is with the online template at LEED Online. If you would like to send me your email address, I will forward the old template to you with some specifics plugged in, and you can plug the same figures into the online template that I have NO ACCESS to. This is why the USGBC really needs to make the letter templates at LEED Online available to at least members, because not all of us have an active LEED for Schools project, OR, we do and we just don't have access. Bottom line, if we plug the same figures in, and it comes up with the point, then nothing has changed.

Because the USGBC no longer has the forms, previously published under 2.0/2.2 as "sample templates" ,http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1447 for LEED 3.0, but continue to have on their site those for LEED 2.0, 2.2, see link above, we have no way of checking it. My point is that you used to be able to COMBINE the water usage for the four of five process items, steamer, dishwasher, ice maker, pre rinse spray and clothes washer, which in TOTAL had to reflect a 20% reduction in water usage. So, if a consultant spec'd an ice maker that was over the baseline, but made up for it with another piece, he'd get the credit. NOW, EACH OF THE FOUR items, of the five to choose from, must in of itself, stand alone as each being 20% below baseline. I was told this by a consultant on a project whose architect kicked it back. While language is not totally clear I told her that the only way to check it would be to access the template on LEEDOnline and plug in some numbers, to test the old scenario. Dishwasher standard is one gallon per rack. Easy to exceed on a rack conveyor machine, but harder on a door style machine. So if you spec a door because that is all the customer needs, at say .91, you aren't 20% below. But your ice maker standard is 20 gal. per 100 lbs. of ice. So if you spec'd an ice maker using 12, you'd drastically cut the water usage, easily making up for the short fall for the dishwasher. Under 2.2, you'd get the credit. Under 3.0, I am told that you would not because the door machine isn't of itself 20% below baseline. I want to be wrong on this, but until I can see that template for myself, plug in numbers for four pieces of equipment, deliberately making one NOT be 20% below baseline, while the total of 4 together as a package IS 20% below or better, I can't tell if you'd get the credit. I have tried and tried to get access to this but I am not on a project right now. So if anyone out there in LEEDUser-land can access the WEc4 template on LEEDOnline, I will happily supply numbers to try this out. I can't tell if there's a flawed form if I can't see the form. The CaGBC, unlike the USGBC, publishes their LEED 3.0 sheets in an xls workbook. NICE! Sadly, they don't have a LEED for Schools, or I'd check there.

I would deeply appreciate it. I am doing a class next week and don't want to mis-inform anyone. ssupplee@championindustries.com . Many thanks.

Thanks to Kasey (my new best friend), here's what I found when using her template: a. the 20% reduction is built into the baseline, i.e. see LEED Retail, which is higher. This is NOT clear in the credit language which implies that you beat the drop-down by 20%; b. there are two categories for ice makers based on poundage, so you can have two ice makers, one in each category and they count separately, as opposed to two dishwashers, which was attempted by another user above. Sadly, it takes more water an energy generally, to run two ice makers this way than one larger, more efficient one. As opposed to LEED 2.2, all and each of the products must be AT the standard in the template, or below, but in 2.2, one could be out of range as long as the total reflected 20% savings.