We have a series of buildings that will be seeking LEED certification and, for which the design teams have been working towards our new LEED Silver guideline. We are all excited about the process and the significant improvements that it is making to our buildings. In the process of preparing to register and submit one of our buildings, the Stata Center, which was designed by Frank Gehry and is currently less than a year from the completion of construction, we discovered that we may not currently comply with the requirements of Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3.0. Our campus has a central cogeneration plant that opened in 1995, creating a dramatic improvement in energy efficiency and pollution reduction over the original plant. In fact, due to its environmental performance, it received EPA\'s Energy Star Award last year. It is supplemented by, and connected by a loop to, a small cooling plant in another building at the east end of our campus. This combined plant serves most all of our buildings. Because of the energy and operations efficiencies it brings, the Life Cycle Cost analysis we do for each new building repeatedly confirms that they should be connected to the central Cogen plant. Over the course of our current capital building program, we have doubled our cooling capacity at the central plant, adding highly efficient chillers that are driven by turbines that use the cogenerated waste heat steam. We have, in fact, leveraged the new building program to increase the capacity sufficiently that older equipment is relegated to secondary or lower running status. The new equipment already installed, and any equipment to be added in the future, is clearly more energy efficient than existing and CFC free. This is the equipment that runs the vast majority of the time, dramatically reducing the current use of the older equipment. However, three older chillers in the east campus and three in the central plant currently still use CFC refrigerants. We realize the concern caused by this refrigerant and are taking steps to phase it out. As you can imagine, however, this is a process that must be carefully scheduled over time, both for capacity and cost reasons. We are in the process of converting the three chillers in the east campus by next winter. We have planned for the conversion of the three CFC chillers in the central plant in five years (by 2008) and have contractor\'\'s estimates in hand to do that work. It should be noted that the project budgets do not fund improvements to the central plant. Funding for the central plant comes instead from operating funds, funds that have been very hard hit in this economy. These conversions from CFC\'\'s are costly with no resultant improvements in capacity or efficiency. Nonetheless, we are moving forward with the conversions on a more aggressive schedule than would be required due to the environmental concerns. The requirements of our capital program are well within the capacity of the new, non-CFC equipment, but their demand may also be served by the older equipment under certain peak or emergency conditions. For example, in calendar year 2002, the three chillers with CFC refrigerants in the main plant produced only 3% of the central plant output in ton-hours. We therefore ask for the acceptance of our plan to phase out the use of CFCs through the refurbishment or replacement of our older equipment by 2008 as a means of satisfying this prerequisite requirement. We will accelerate this schedule if funding and scheduling will permit, but are not confident that we can under current economic conditions. It would be very unfortunate to lose the momentum that the LEED process has given us to make our buildings greener, which we are afraid would happen if we lose the ability to pursue LEED certification because of this prerequisite. We believe that this plan satisfies the goal of LEED to phase out CFCs, although not within the timeframe technically called for.