Appeal to USGBC for credit ruling: 0098-EAp30-040502 Construction is for the building began in May 2002. Construction is scheduled for completion in December of 2003. After receiving the ruling to inquiry 0098-EAp30-040502, we informed the owner who authorized us to proceed on a fast track to design and price a free standing facility to produce our own chilled water using non-CFC equipment. That design work has been accomplished, and an additional $1,600,000 has been reserved to construct the plant. Even though initial negotiations with TECO (this is not a U.T. central plant as assumed in the previous inquiry, but a utility providing chilled water) had not been successful, they had demonstrated some willingness to consider our proposals and explore strategies to convert their facilities to a CFC free system. Their willingness had evolved from reserving CFC free capacity for this project without commitment for conversion (status at the time of our inquiry dated 4-05-02) to reserving CFC-free capacity for our project and a commitment for a ten year conversion for their central plant. We have just had a major breakthrough. After additional discussions with the university and the utility company including senior management and some board members, TECO has made the commitment to convert their entire system (the central plant, south main plant, and a new facility to be in operation by 2007) to a CFC free system in five years (by the end of 2007). We believe this is significant as our building will only be using .5% of TECO\'s chilled water (1.3% of building area served). This new commitment accomplishes a goal which our client and the USGBC share: UTHSC/H to change Houston\'s infrastructure system, and USGBC to change the industry. But now \'Houston\' we have a dilemma. This huge shift by the utility still doesn\'t satisfy the prerequisite as it will not be completed within one year of occupancy. If our client stays the course we\'re on for certification, they will spend an additional $1,600,000 in capitol costs and $100,000 per year additional operation cost, lose system efficiency and redundancy, give up critical green space to the south of the building, and most significantly walk away from leveraging a .5% user request to change the entire utility system. If we maintain our new partnership with TECO, our client must drop their goal of LEED certification. For the above reasons, we are requesting special consideration from the Council regarding this prerequisite. If the issue was a credit rather than a prerequisite, we believe it would meet the requirements for an innovation credit. However since it is a prerequisite, we have no alternative to appealing the criteria for timing of CFC phase-out in this prerequisite. The environmental impacts of many other buildings in this section of Houston will be reduced by this partnership, whereas if we build the freestanding facility, only the CFC impact of our building will be mitigated. We believe that this process has met the intent of the LEED rating system- to accelerate positive change in the way buildings and community systems are designed and operated. In addition, we believe the money that has been reserved for the free standing facility could be better spent for the photovoltaic array designed as the roof of the building but not currently in the budget.