ASHRAE 90.1 mandatory provisions

You only need to meet the 90.1 mandatory and prescriptive requirements that are part of the scope of work. So if none apply then you do not need to make changes. I think this applies to the 10% lighting power reduction if the lights are not in the scope. Any new equipment needs to comply with the Energy Star requirement.

1. The addition of task lights complicates the issue. Task lights are typically required to be included in the calculation of lighting power density. Where specifically in the Reference Guide does it state that only permanently installed light fixtures are included and task lights are excluded? EAc1.1 lists task lights as part of the calculation. Since they are not temporary lighting and will be installed as part of the scope of work I think they must be included.

2. After reviewing the Reference Guide and credit interpretations for EAp2 and EAc1.4 it appears that all of the equipment that is rated by Energy Star must comply and is not exempt from this prerequisite requirement. EAp2 refers to EAc1.4. The Reference Guide clearly states that all installed equipment and appliances that are eligible for Energy Star apply. LEED Interpretation #2090 confirms this approach. For old equipment it must comply with the Energy Star criteria in effect at the time of purchase. For new equipment it must comply with the current criteria.

I think that would be correct since only the task lights are in the tenant's scope of work. CI projects only need to comply with requirements in alignment with the tenant's scope of work so yes if the lighting is already installed and the tenant is not installing any new lighting it does not have to comply.

Adam,

You are correct, only new equipment must be included. If the project is reusing existing equipment, it does not have to be included as part of the calculation.

Missed the addenda in my search Adam and if Amy says it is so, it is so.

Personally I think this addenda change is ridiculous. A project is now incentivized to keep inefficient equipment and all they have to do is buy one new Energy Star item to qualify. Office equipment is one area that the tenant has had continual control over unlike the lighting and HVAC in the newly leased space.

Unfortunately too many LEED "rules" loose sight of the credit intent in the name of easier credit attainment. The intent here is to save energy and the original method (including all appliance and equipment) properly incentivized at least marginally good practice in this area.

For most projects this just adds another easy credit to a system now over-run with easy credits which have marginal effect.

The problem with focusing solely on energy efficiency is that wider environmental impacts are missed. It is not simply a matter of buying new Energy star compliant equipment. Where a tenant uses perfectly viable existing equipment it avoids the impacts of manufacturing new equipment and the impacts of disposing of electrical/electronic waste. In addition, I doubt if any tenant's IT team would want to have to reinstall software and files on new machines, so my vote is for the 'easy' but logical credit!compliance

John I think you are not correctly interpreting what I am saying. I am not suggesting that anyone dump viable IT equipment and replace it with new.

The tenant has had constant control over these purchase decisions since before they moved into a new space. If the company had any sort of broader environmental focus then the used equipment would already be Energy Star compliant at the time it was purchased. I am suggesting that all of the equipment new and used be included in the evaluation of credit compliance. We did a CI project a couple of years ago. They did not buy any new equipment but the vast majority of the existing equipment was already Energy Star qualified at the time of purchase. We did a very easy inventory and demonstrated credit compliance without buying any new equipment. Doesn't get any easier than that.

So I am not saying that they should dump perfectly good equipment and buy new. That would be antithetical to common sense and the environment for the reasons you point out. I am saying that if they don't already use or buy new Energy Star equipment then they should not be able to earn this credit.

The problem with "easy" in LEED is that it typically means there is minimal effect. The purpose of LEED is the create effect in the market so too many gimme credits in the system results in a plaque for the status quo and not anything I would label with a leadership standard. As it now stands LEED is so easy overall that about half the projects are Gold certified. The market has caught up so as we make the current version of LEED easier it frankly looses some of its meaning.

The current credit compliance is logical if all we care about is getting a point in LEED; it is illogical if you truly care about minimizing the overall environmental impact of IT equipment and using LEED as a means to that end.

I have a follow-up question concerning the lighting. We have a CI space in which most of the lighting was provided by the base building and not altered in the scope of work. We have a few pendant lights that were added and some task lights in the open office areas. Am I correct in assuming that the only lights that need to demonstrate compliance are the new pendant lights and the task lights? It seems like having only that wattage represented for the entire square footage of the office would not be an accurate reflection of the LPD reduction. Thoughts?

I just wanted to follow up on the question I asked on October 30 - I posed the same question to GBCI and received the following response. I thought I would share.....

Thank you for your inquiry, regarding EAp2. For EA prerequisites, all systems installed as part of the LEED-CI project scope of work must comply with the requirements of each of the applicable prerequisites. In addition, all lighting, whether or not installed as part of the LEED-CI project scope of work, must be included in the lighting power calculations in EAp2 to determine the lighting power reduction. Points are available in the EAc1.1 suite of credits for efficiency improvements above the minimum requirements of the prerequisites. All lighting is required to be included in for EAc1.1 and EAc1.2.

We encounter projects where the tenant occupies a building in which the landlord installs general lighting as part of the base building scope, but the LPD far exceeds ASHRAE requirements, suggesting an expensive redesign of the (sometimes new) lighting system, which appears wasteful!
In seeking a workaround reference to the ASHRAE 90.1 User Manual is encouraging "The lighting power density requirements of the Standard apply to new lighting systems in any space in an existing building. A new lighting system is one that replaces 50% or more of the existing luminaires in any building space. A renovation of a space that replaces less than 50% of the existing luminaires in that space is not required to comply with the Standard, unless the renovation increases installed lighting power."
It seems that the Checklist (above) reinforces this with "In a remodeling project, if new lighting is replacing less than 50% of the total installed wattage, the project is exempt from reducing LPD 10% from the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standard. However, you still must comply with all mandatory requirements for controls and wiring.".
However, compliance with ASHRAE 90.1 may not mean compliance with EAp2?
In the Implementation section of the Reference Guide it states "If provisions of the base building are managed entirely by the landlord (and therefore cannot be changed by the building tenant) and do not meet the requirements of AHRAE 90.1-2007, then only areas that are not part of the tenant scope of work and exclusively controlled by the landlord are exempt from the requirements of the standard."
Maybe this explains the GBCI's response to Ellen's query?
Thus, when the tenant takes over the lighting system and the landlord has no further control, the tenant must redesign the lighting in the tenant area to comply with ASHRAE 90.1!