LEED 2009 Energy Updates

I tried to post a thread on this last week, but was running into website errors. I posted a comment in the credit library, which I think is public (although it kept trying to reset the toggle to private), which I'll repost here for possible discussion.

Comment:
The prescriptive options should remain in place. These (especially the Core Performance Guide) are painfully underrecognized by point allocation, yet deliver buildings that significantly outperform an ASHRAE 90.1-2007 baseline by 16-26% depending on climate (savings determined by NBI analysis of 20-30% improvement of the Core Performance Guide beyond 90.1-2004, and discounted to reflect 3.9% average energy cost difference between the 2004 and 2007 versions of 90.1). I suggest explicitly allowing both option 2 and option 3 as prerequisite-satisfying options, but stripping them of points to help encourage teams to use the new (now higher) thresholds of Option 1.

I don't think prescriptive options are widely used (maybe in Volume/Prototype projects), although this change literally forces an energy model, which isn't always a good investment for small projects as long as there is a credible prescriptive path.

Also, while smaller steps between the "big step" (represented by mandatory v4 as of 11/1/2016) can be of value, I'm more concerned that raising the bar on EAc1 allows for further delay for the switch over to v4.

It is my hope that USGBC reaffirms their plan to halt new LEED 2009 projects after next October, and that any interim changes won't further set back v4.

I am for any raising of the bar so I support the move. Unfortunately there are still 34 states with 90.1-2007 or worse as the minimum. LEED ceased being on the leading edge of this issue several years ago. There are only two states who automatically adopt the latest version of 90.1 so all the rest lag behind to a certain extent.

This lag in 90.1 adoption is directly related to the lag in requiring LEED v4. They are obviously trying to fill a gap for the next year (hopefully no more). Looks like 90.1-2010 will have to wait until next October to take effect in LEED. Shortly after that 90.1-2016 will be out and because of the huge lag in v4 it will be basically out of date when it starts. This lag in v4 will adversely affect LEED for years to come unless they adopt a continuous improvement development schedule that makes sense. Annual updates to LEED should occur and perhaps include automatic adoption of new standards as they come out.

Regarding baseline changes - there was a proposal to create a fixed baseline using 90.,1-2004 Appendix G. Not sure where that stands but certainly some complications as Appendix G evolves and fixes issues.

Regarding prescriptive paths - I don't think this is much of an issue. In theory they are a good idea, especially for smaller projects. In practice almost no one uses them for LEED. I think the utilization rate is well under 1% of project submitted use them.

Theresa - if you are doing a v3 project but using 90.1-2010 as your code, there is now an ACP with a point table for savings against 2010. We run into this a lot, since 90.1-2010 is our base code in Massachusetts. It saves having to construct two baselines.

http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/ASHRAE%2090.1-2010%20Adjusted%2...

I am in favor of the proposed upgrade as a stepping stone to help fill the current gap in minimum energy performance between LEED 2009 and LEED v4. However, this will cause some buildings not to be able to meet LEED; especially existing buildings being renovated or having additions.

We were recently involved with analyzing and existing building that with additions would be 200,00sf. The additions total 25,000 sf and renovation 13,800. Total additions and renovations are slightly less than 20% of the total.

based on the best reasonable case, given the constraints of the existing building and with a fairly reasonable budget, it appears the renovated and addition areas would only be able to save 12-15% over the referenced LEED 2009 ASHRAE Std 90.1-2007 baseline. Thus it would not qualify under the proposed new requirement.

If the project would have a chance to meet the proposed new requirement we would have to change out the existing curtain wall and make other improvements to the building envelope that would cause a major increase in the budget - which is not able to be expanded. This project would then not be able to be LEED certified at any level because it could not meet the newly proposed energy standard.

But maybe that is OK. Every building should not be LEED, especially if they are not able to meet accepted minimum standards,. The down side is that when the LEED process is abandoned and the mandate becomes "design to LEED" or "design to best practices" the projects rarely come close to meeting the other LEED thresholds.

I also support this change, and wish it had been sooner and deeper. As a transition to v4, this could have made the move much more of a transition than a change. Having some lag to adoption to code is not all bad, but typically it should only be the 3 year cycle, not even farther. With some states considering rolling back energy codes to "create jobs", it is going to be harder in many areas to get code to catch up in any meaningful manner.