Hi, we have a LEED 2009 registered Core and Shell project in the Philippines which utilizes district cooling. We are to pursue EAc6: Green Power by purchasing RECs, and calculate annual electricity consumption based on compliance path 1 – Design Energy Cost. In the case where energy comes from district cooling and electricity, do we also include in the calculation of 35% of building electricity the district cooling Mbtu/yr consumption (by converting Mbtu to kWh)? Or do we only extract 35% of building electricity from the annual kWh consumption excluding Mbtu consumption from the district cooling?

We checked the LEED guidance for projects with district cooling – Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED v2 and LEED 2009 – Design & Construction, 13 August 2010. However, it only provides guidance for projects pursuing EAc6 using the first and second approach for implementation where green power is being utilized in the building.

Hello Everyone,

We are currently working on a project that requires LEED certification.
In this regards, I am soliciting everyone's support to share me your expertise on LEED. I've joined this group because I know that you will help me a lot on this.

My first query is on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control. What is the best statement to be written on the signage? Are plan is to put the signage on the entrance gate of the site. Is it good? Do we have standard size of the signage board?
Looking forward for your responses. Thank you very much in advance.

My project does not have a cooling tower. One of the ACP eligibility condition is: "the baseline system designated for the building using ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G Table G3.1.1 includes a cooling tower (systems 7 & 8)"

1. I would like to confirm if my project is no longer viable for this as ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G dictates that my baseline should be system 4.
2. Am I allowed to change my baseline to system 8 to be eligible to this credit?

Hi All,
I would like to hear your opinion about co-processing as an acceptable waste diversion to meet the intent of this credit. Our project is managing waste by submitting those that can no longer be recycled to co-processing. Co-processing is defined as a secure form of waste management that fully recovers the energy and mineral components from waste for use as fuel. Solid wastes are shredded to uniform size to yield maximum energy creation. The waste is then used as a fuel source in cement kilns. The ash left in the kiln is then used as fly ash component in the cement mix.
I am confused on USGBC and GBCI’s take this. Our project is similar to the inquiry in LI 2141 (dated 24 March 2004) where their unrecyclable waste will be transported to a Waste to Energy facility where its byproduct will be used to produce a low grade cementitious material. However, the ruling states the following: “The CIR is inquiring if the diversion of non-recyclable materials to an EPA approved Waste to Energy facility qualifies as construction waste diversion for the purpose of this credit. The intent states ” Divert construction & demolition debris from disposal in landfills & incinerators.” Based on the credit intent, incineration of construction waste materials cannot be used as an alternative for diverting waste from the landfill. Applicable internationally” So it seems that it’s not acceptable. However, I read an article in EDC-The USGBC recognized magazine for LEED professionals (http://www.lafarge-na.com/EDC_Reprint_0713_WasteIntoGold_Final.pdf), that a project in Kansas certified in 2012 was able to document waste diversion by repurposing the construction waste as fuel for the cement kiln and as a raw material component in the Portland cement produced.
Am I wrong in thinking that the LI 2141 inquiry is the same as the approach done by the LEED certified project in Kansas? Do you think I can submit a similar approach to the one prepared by the project in Kansas and get approval from GBCI? Your thoughts on this will be greatly appreciated.

Hi,
The credit states that projects with 1.5 FAR will allow vegetated roof or roof gardens to be qualified in the area calculations. Since LEED calculates FAR using only non-residential spaces (as shown on this site's glossary), what is the equivalent or conversion of 1.5 FAR for residential buildings (e.g. DU/acre)?

I'm a bit confused with why LEED ND is putting a point on this specific criteria. But before that, please correct me if I understand the criteria correctly: The ground floor face of the building (which contains the entries, and not the whole or upper facade) must be not more than 1ft away from the sidewalk.

In practice, we usually give a good distance between the facade (most especially the entries) and the sidewalk, as it gives breaks from heavy pedestrian traffic from the sidewalk and the volume of people coming in and out of a building. Also, the distance is an opportunity to provide vegetation on the frontage which potentially is where we get the open space in LEED BDC.

Hi All,

We would like to get your opinion in the situation below if approach is acceptable to IEQp1:

We have an enclosed Driver’s lounge, Lift lobbies and Administration office at the Basement floors. The Owner wants to remove the duct for outdoor air supply of these areas and instead, get outdoor air supply from the ventilated air from the basement parking. Will this be acceptable if Carbon Monoxide (CO) sensors will be installed at the basement parking to trigger an alarm at 8 to 9 ppm reading (to make sure air is not contaminated)? The alarm will then trigger jet fans to ventilate the CO concentration in the basement. We are currently getting confirmation from the consultants if the 8 to 9 ppm level is not routinely encountered at the basement to make sure that the jet fans will not be required to operate more frequent than normal.

The basis for the 9ppm is the ASHRAE 62.1-2007 table 4-1 for National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Outdoor Air as Set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Outdoor air shaft is actually available. The Owner only wants to remove the ducts serving the above-mentioned areas from the outdoor air shaft for value engineering.

My queries:
A. Would procurement of EPA registered chemicals (not paper), as claimed by supplier, comply with LEED requirements for this credit & contribute to getting LEED points?
B. I checked the link under the toolkit which took me to the UL website. I noticed that the standard names have been changed from (Environmental Choice) CCD to the equivalent UL "Ecologo" certification mark. While I was able to find the CCD 112 equivalent under "Digestion Additives for Cleaning and Odor Control" (UL 2798), Would you know which UL Ecologo is the equivalent of CCD 146 for Dish Cleaners and Food Appliance Cleaners? What the site provides is the equivalent of CCD 146 Hardsurface Cleaners only.

thank you and regards,
Pabs

Could anyone care to show me a sample SSc7.1 documentation that was already approved by USGBC? Or even just a documentation format coming from an approved submission. :)

My apology for posting a query quite not related to this section.

Can I register a project consisting of two (2) identical buildings connected by a suspended bridge and both located within the declared project boundary - as one registration for LEED NC? The Total GFA is about 88,000 sq ft.

Please advise. Thanks in advance.