Has Anyone Read ID&C?

There is also at least one instance where ID&C didn't get the same changes as BD&C, e.g. MR Material Disclosure and Optimization, BD&C split up recycled content and closed loop recycling into separate options, whereas ID&C kept the 3rd draft wording where only recycled content from a manufacturer with a closed loop recycling program may contribute. It is very tough with the same BD&C and ID&C credits aren't aligned. The titles for the options in this credit are also different.
The redlined version of MR doesn't show this, I had to review the full BD&C and ID&C documents.

The EA section in ID+C changed very little. The biggest change is that projects will have the option of earning points and meeting the prerequisite through a modeling option. This is not required and projects can still earn the prerequisite and points through a very similar prescriptive compliance path as before. It certain respects it is easier as you do not have to figure out X% better than ASHRAE 90.1 but rather just comply with the prescriptive requirements. A bit harder to meet perhaps but more work, not necessarily.

Melissa, I have been looking into this, I disagree with Marcus' assessment.

The prescriptive path for ID&C - EAc: Optimize Energy Performance (Formerly EAc1.3) has been rearranged in a way that is very limiting and will IMO hurt or even dissuade TI projects from perusing LEED. In addition to most of the credits not being realistic to achieve, you can only get a maximum of 16 points going the prescriptive approach vs 25 points via the energy modeling method.

Detailed Break Down:
Building Envelope (2–4 points) - Not possible for most TI projects that are not changing the envelope (someone correct me if I am wrong, but this seems more difficult then adding window film).

HVAC Systems (2 points) - Each of the two options have been reduced from 5 points to 2 points and further it looks like you have to chose one or the other now! A reduction from 10 possible points to 2!

HVAC Zoning and Controls (2 points) - This credit has been a point of contention on ALL of our TI projects, it can be expense for most projects to add as many zones as are required (way more than industry standard). In addition, the LEED reviewers have taken very drastic stances on what it means to "sense" occupancy. This further increases the cost of the credit adding little to no benefit in energy savings (we've done some LCA studies).

HVAC Equipment Efficiency (2 points) - On a typical one or two floor TI project we aren't changing the base building systems so we aren't eligible.

Lighting Power Density (1–4 points) - 3 or 4 points is doable under the ASHRAE 2007 code but likely we won't get as many points under ASHRAE 2010.

Daylighting controls are typically too pricey to justify (1 point).

Occupancy Sensor Lighting Controls (1 point) is doable - practically status quo.

ENERGY STAR Equipment and Appliances (1–2 points) - doable in most cases.

Say we get 3-4 for lighting, 1 for occupancy sensors and 2 for energy star that is 6-7 out of 25 possible points. This will hurt most project's chances of getting a good score or even certifying. Even springing for the expensive zoning and daylighting you'd get 8-9 points out of 25. There is a problem here IMO.

Dylan - Beside stating that you disagree with my assessment, when reading yours we don't disagree at all. My point was in response to the issue Mellisa raised of it being more work. I do not see anything in your response to indicate it is more work. As I said it is harder but not more work.

Regarding stringency many of the difficult issues you raise are exactly the same issues that are in the system now.

The point allocation issue is an interesting one and was not something I was paying attention to in my (non-detailed) assessment above. One could certainly make a case for greater point allocation in the prescriptive path. The point distribution is supposed to be allocated based on the weighting criteria. So it appears someone thinks the performance path (modeling) provides more value than the prescriptive path. I can see that this will be a potentially major issue for smaller projects and project with very limited energy-related scope who are less likely to be able to afford a modeling effort. I'll make sure to bring this up during the committee review of the 4th public comments. Thanks for "pointing" it out Dylan.

Marcus - Changing the point allocations will change the way teams approach ID&C EA in v4. Depending on the project type that could very well mean more work.

"The EA section in ID+C changed very little." - I was worried some of the statements in your "non-detailed" assessment would mislead others.

The stringency I talked about regarding existing credits (that have been brought back exactly the same) will be exasperated by the fact that less points will not be worth fighting for.

I'd like to hear from the "Someone"/USGBC regarding their thought process of reducing the point allocations to the prescriptive path. The weighting process all together for the ID&C EA credits.

The Green Power Credit is down to 2 points from 5 points as well (correctly IMO) - but that further means teams will need to look elsewhere to find 3 points.

Well it did change very little relative to the MR section as it generally includes the same compliance paths. But the devil is in the details as they say.

I have already forwarded your assessment and our conversation here to the USGBC staff and the EA TAG chair so they can potentially consider the issues you raise.

In certain respects Melissa is right that ID+C is often the little brother who does not get enough attention.

In both BD+C and ID+C, the maximum points allowed differs between the performance and prescriptive options. This is for the most part based on the relative levels of achievements between the two options than simply trying to promote modeling and a performance-based approach (though USGBC generally does try to encourage that method). With BD+C, it’s more straightforward, as the prescriptive option is based solely on the 50% AEDGs. The AEDGs are designed so that when followed in their entirety, the results are a roughly 50% increase in performance over ASHRAE 90.1-2004. The max points in the BD+C prescriptive approach then relates about how much better a project would have to be over 90.1-2010 in the performance option, and assigns that amount as the max in Option 2. With ID+C, it is basically the same thing, but is more complicated since there are additional paths that do not directly relate to the AEDGs. These numbers may require some refining as we learn more about 90.1-2010 and how certain aspects of buildings have been addressed within it, but the idea will remain roughly the same.

Chrissy Macken will be providing some additional context on point changes for other credits between 2009 and v4.