As we all know, our Energy Star requirement is based on the eligibility of the equipment for rating and that eligibility is defined by Energy Star not by the USGBC. If a general category is not rated, like microwaves or ranges, things are fairly straightforward.

If the definition found in the Program Requirements document clearly excludes the equipment, like monitors over 65" or combi ovens with steam, then things remain straightforward. However, plan on uploading your excluded equipment cutsheet and definition to confirm this for the reviewer.

We recently, however, saw a piece of equipment that couldn't be easily excluded based on the program definition. These electric Panini grills seemed to meet the definition for griddles, i.e., two platens, grooved or smooth, contact cooking, thermostat, etc. When we reviewed the products that were rated, however, we noted that the scale of the equipment rated was very different than our equipment. Asking the manufacturer often results in the answer that best suits their sale of the equipment, so we went to Energy Star.

I am posting this because when I made contact with Energy Star to ask the simple question were these grills eligible, the answer was very tough to get. The first line of response was "this equipment isn't rated because the manufacturer hasn't partnered with us". I clarified that I knew they weren't rated but were they eligible. The next response was that "it's up to the manufacturer to determine that". Obviously that would be a fox and henhouse scenario for this kind of situation.

Ultimately, I had to track down the third party company that is doing the responses for Energy Star and call them on the phone. Once I was able to make clear what I needed to know, I got a rather reluctant response from a tech person via email that "the intent of the program definition" was in fact larger, free standing equipment vs. the countertop device I am looking at.

This may sound ridiculous but these 2 electric Panini grills drew so much power, compared to the more efficient larger equipment, that they took a 100% Energy Star result worth 5 pts down to 54% or barely making the Prereq.

We have excluded this equipment based on the "intent" of the program definition as the USBGC has always recognized intent. However, I was personally disheartened at how hard it was to get this answer and how hard it was to explain what I was asking. There are certainly pros and cons to LEED piggybacking on other organization's standards.