Hi Marcus, 

I have posted this in the v4.1 credit as well, but understand this one is much more active. I am working on a LEED v4 project looking at following EApc95 for Energy. I understand that the v4.1 Energy Reduction credit follows the same requirements as v4 EApc95 (except with an update to ASHRAE 090.1-2061), whereby the project can achieve additional savings by including a combination of energy cost reduction and reduced GHGs compared to a baseline building. However, I am working on an Ice Rink project, which in most cases would use Natural Gas, that has decided to electrify as an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from the building. The project is located in an area where Natural Gas has an emissions factor 6 times that of the electrical grid. The issue we are having is that the overall energy cost reduction is quite minimal (~18%) compared to the baseline. This is because ASHRAE Energy Modeling rules require an energy model to be modelled against a building with like systems, hence the project is comparing against an all-electric building where most efficiencies are already modelled at 100% in the baseline. 

My question is whether there are any ACPs for all-electric buildings, or at a minimum if there are any innovation credits for all-electric buildings. Any support would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Tim

Hi there, 

I am working on a LEED v4 project looking at following EApc95 for Energy. I understand that the v4.1 Energy Reduction credit follows the same requirements as v4 EApc95 (except with an update to ASHRAE 090.1-2061), whereby the project can achieve additional savings by including a combination of energy cost reduction and reduced GHGs compared to a baseline building. However, I am working on an Ice Rink project, which in most cases would use Natural Gas, that has decided to electrify as an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from the building. The project is located in an area where Natural Gas has an emissions factor 6 times that of the electrical grid. The issue we are having is that the overall energy cost reduction is quite minimal (~18%) compared to the baseline. This is because ASHRAE Energy Modeling rules require an energy model to be modelled against a building with like systems, hence the project is comparing against an all-electric building where most efficiencies are already modelled at 100% in the baseline. 

My question is whether there are any ACPs for all-electric buildings, or at a minimum if there are any innovation credits for all-electric buildings. Any support would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Tim

We are building a replacement elementary school on an existing school site.  The school will get water from new wells we are installing that require a separate 'pump house'.  This pump house will only be approx 53 square meters in area.  It will supply water to the school and in turn be fed it's power, gas and data from the school.  Can we exclude the pump house since it can't meet LEED on it's own (based on size/no occupants)? If we have to include it does that mean that the entire structure would also have to meet all the project LEED credits we are pursuing (e.g energy, materials, metering)? Thank you!

Hello,

Where can I find information on peak visitors for residential units? I cannot find an equation for calculating the number of peak visitors in a residential building using any of the recommended standards. 

 ASHRAE 62.1-2010 Table 6-1 gives default on residents but not peak visitors.

This will be used to determine bike and car parking facilities.

Thank you

Amy

Our company is in charge of validating an office building compliance with credit IEQc8.2 - Views, under LEED2009 V3. 

The building floorplate is shaped as a rectangle that repeats itself on 16 floors, with no fixed furniture, and curtain-wall facades on every side.

How are we supposed to draw lines of sight? Do we have to indicate a 90degrees view cone for any arbitrary point? Do we have to trace these cones of sight starting from the façade going towards the inside of the floorplate or should we do it all the way around (meaning from critical points towards the outside)?

Thank you!

Hi, does anyone know if the v2009 interpretation still applies that the first 3 ft of the 10 ft must be a permanent system (like recessed mat system) and the remainder can be roll-up mats.  Or with the new wording in v4 can the entire 10 feet be made up of rolling/walk-off mats if they are serviced weekly? this is for a school.  thank you

From what I have seen on other threads in this forum, wood ceilings & walls (tiles, slats, planks, panels, etc.) are expected to comply to CDPH. These ceilings typically have multiple components (composite core with veneer or solid wood, strapping, fabric, etc.) and the variations in size, shape, species, materials are almost infinite. In fact, we specialize in customized panels to the extent that almost no two projects for us are the same. Also, take into account that the material we use are basically commodities - we have to take whatever is available. A particular brand of MDF might meet CDPH requirements, but when we go to manufacture the product, that brand might not be available (e.g. the plant might burn down, like happened to the Arauco particleboard plant in Grayling). Does anyone have any experience on how this works out practically? Is it possible for us, as a manufacturer to become CDPH compliant when we have such a massive range in products & materials? Appreciate any insight into this, as we are starting to get a lot of V4 & V4.1 projects.

I'd like your opinions on a phrase in Protect or Restore Habitat: "Project teams may exclude vegetated landscape areas that are constructed to accommodate rainwater infiltration from the vegetation and soils requirement ...".

We have a downtown project that will include almost exactly 30% restored habitat (100% previously developed site). In order to infiltrate the maximum rainwater volume, 10% of the site, overlapping with the restored habitat (1/3 of our restored habitat, to use not quite correct but round numbers) will have to have rainwater infiltration infrastructure 2 meters underground, with a layer of sand, and possibility of a thin layer of soil, meaning we will be limited in our choice of plants (no trees etc.).

1. How does the exemption phrase in the guide apply here? : does it mean that this 10% of the site used for rainwater infiltration could be excluded from the "100%" of the site, and we calculate the 30% restored habitat area based on the 90% that does not participate in infiltration? Is there another reading of this?

2. Alternatively, if we can plant shallow native species in the soil layer above the sand, can this area count towards our total?

3. If I understand correctly, v4.1 will allow us to use any soil as long as it does not come from farmland, greenfield, or is peat moss, without other testing requirements - but does this apply to sand/soil layers, over our rainwater infiltration area, for example.

Thank you!

Hello all, 

For a curtain wall case, the manufacturer has their own windows and some extrusions and insulation product and it is possible for them to have EPDs of their own. For their curtain wall product, they would prefer to submit a LEED package whereby they package the existing EPDs - rather than needing to develop their own EPD which would only count for 1 product.  

Do you have any comments related? What they would be looking for is a credit interpretation ruling that says yes - you can provide EPDs for the components in a prefab system rather than a single EPD for the system.

Thank you

I do not have a coach assigned to this project, however I have a question regarding the LEED boundary and MPR interpretation for an addition project. I have emailed GBCI Canada over a month ago to no response. My gut is saying to exclude, but any advice on similar situations would be great! 

The project will be a classroom space addition (19137sf) to an existing (non-LEED) school, as well as a new fitness room addition (2270sf) to the gymnasium in a completely separate spot. Both will have somewhat minimal work to the existing building connection. The fitness room will be separate from the classroom space addition as it makes sense to connect the fitness room to the existing school gym, and the classroom space can only be placed in a certain area of the property as well. The fitness room will be very independent of the classroom addition and i'm not sure they could even be modelled properly together. Should we include both structures as on LEED building and certify together, or exclude the fitness room completely and only certify the classroom addition? We would assume we'd have to put in a permenant meter for the fitness room even though it's not tied into the other addition? It doesn't really make sense to have to pay to install a meter separate just for LEED compliance, but it wouldn't tie into the classroom addition meter either. 

The MPR states: “primary and secondary school projects MAY include more than one physically distinct building in a single LEED project.” If I’m maybe answering my own question, I am assuming that so long as it can be modelled together properly, we should include them both under one certification under “xxxxx school addition”? Scope of work is simultaneous and not phased. Otherwise if we cannot model together, we can exclude the fitness room from the classroom addition and separate the scope during construction...Thanks!

Just wanting to double check my assumptions!