You can’t pursue EAc2.2 without first having EAc2.1 in your pocket. In the first credit, EAc2.1, the project team determines possible energy conservation measures. In the second credit, EAc2.2, the project team implements all of those energy efficiency measures identified as low-cost and no-cost. These might include things like replacing T12 lamps with T8 lamps, reprogramming building system controls, and reconfiguring building system set points.
Projects that pursue EAc2.1 generally always pursue EAc2.2 as well. Pursuit of this credit directly supports increased energy savings and thus helps earn points under EAc1: Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance.
Staff training is the second piece of this credit. It’s also easy to implement, but is sometimes overlooked.
The credit simply requires the project provide facility managers, engineers, and major-systems equipment operators with training that “builds awareness and skills in a broad range of sustainable building operations topics.” (See credit language for more.)
The credit doesn’t have a minimum training requirement, but LEED recommends 24 hours per staff person per year.
Training can be undertaken through programs established by industry organizations like BOMA or ASHRAE or may be conducted with an equipment manufacturer or controls contractor or through a third-party commissioning firm. Training should be related to the efficient operations and maintenance of the building.
Each of the three Adobe Towers is LEED-EBOM Platinum. Since 2001, a total of $2.3 million in capital costs (including $483,000 in rebates) has resulted in 47% reduced electric use, 42% reduced gas use, and 48% reduced water use, which add up to an annual savings of $1.6 million. Proactive staff involvement and training has been a key component of the success there. Photo– William Porter
Teams are allowed to define what low-cost means to their project, and many use a combination of the payback period and implementation cost to determine a reasonable threshold. As a widely accepted rule of thumb, measures with a simple payback period of zero to 18 months are considered low-cost, and your team should be prepared to provide justification if the payback threshold is set below 18 months. See the Documentation Toolkit for an example table showing low-cost improvements.
The definition of low-cost is up to you, and it’s fair game to include implementation costs in that assessment. If you have a lot of quick payback measures but not enough budget to implement them all, consider establishing a reasonable upper limit for the implementation cost, in addition to taking payback into account. For example, you could complete all low-cost measures that are $2,500 or less to implement. Remember that any low-cost measures that are not completed must be included in your capital improvement plan.
All low and no cost measures must be implemented before the end of the performance period to earn this credit. If you’re running out of time, consider extending the length of the performance period for this credit, and for other credits as necessary, so that all prerequisites and credits end within the same 30-day window. By strategically selecting some credits to have a longer performance period, you may be able to avoid having to collect documentation for all data-intensive credits while still meeting the 30-day rule.
The training program should be in place during the performance period, but there is no explicit requirement for how many hours must be provided during that time. LEEDuser recommends using it as an opportunity to bring staff and contractors up to speed on energy efficiency and sustainable operations at the building, and providing 24 hours of energy efficiency related training to each staff member each year.
Implement the low-cost or no-cost energy conservation measures identified as a part of EAc2.1: Existing Building Commissioning—Investigation and Analysis. These measures must be implemented by the end of the performance period.
The credit allows project teams to determine their own definition of “low cost.” Energy conservation measures considered “low-cost” are, as a rule of thumb, considered those with an anticipated payback of zero to 18 months. If using a shorter timeframe, project teams should be prepared to justify their decision if needed.
Glenborough Realty Trust’s 33 New Montgomery building in San Francisco was retrocommissioned by Servidyne, yielding an annual savings of $18,497 on its energy bill. Photo – Glenborough Properties LLCMost projects that pursue EAc2.1 also pursue this credit, because it is inexpensive to implement and offers high potential for long-term operational savings and increased energy efficiency. In other words, EAc2.1 represents the investment, while the payoff happens here in EAc2.2.
Calculate and track the costs and benefits for all implemented energy conservation measures.
Use actual data of the implementation costs and energy cost savings where possible and extrapolate to anticipated annual savings.
As supporting documentation, provide a table listing all no-cost and low-cost operational improvements along with their observed or expected economic impact (simple payback or return on investment).
Remember to clearly show the implementation date for each no and low-cost measure so the review team can verify that all items were completed during the performance period. It also helps to clearly explain your team’s definition of low-cost.
Include a timeframe for implementing each capital measure identified. A capital improvement plan is not considered complete if this information is missing.
Crosscheck that your no and low-cost measures list for EAc2.2 includes all measures identified under EAc2.1 and EAp1, as there needs to be consistency in these three areas.
To document cost savings from energy efficiency measures, you may do some spot metering, but projects usually estimate savings. Analyzing the building’s utility bills after implementation can also help gauge savings.
Provide ongoing training for facility managers, engineers, and major-systems equipment operators to build awareness and skills in sustainable operations practices.
Twenty-four hours of training per staff person per year is recommended, and training must be provided to all employees and contractors involved in building operations and maintenance, including facility managers, engineers and major-systems equipment operators.
Your team can pursue training through a variety of programs, such as those established by industry organizations like BOMA’s BEEP program or ASHRAE’s eLearning program (see Resources). Conducting trainings with an equipment manufacturer or controls contractor or through a third-party commissioning firm would also satisfy the credit requirements. Training should be related to the efficient operations and maintenance of the building.
Update the building operating plan based on any changes that are made as a result of the chosen energy conservation measures.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
To implement minor improvements and identify planned capital projects to ensure that the building’s major energy-using systems are repaired, operated and maintained effectively to optimize energy performance.
Implement no- or low-cost operational improvements and create a capital plan for major retrofits or upgrades.
Provide training for management staff that builds awareness and skills in a broad range of sustainable building operations topics. This could include energy efficiency and building, equipment and systems operations and maintenance.
Demonstrate the observed and/or anticipated financial costs and benefits of measures that have been implemented.
Update the building operating planA general documentation summarizing the intended operation of each base building system described in the systems narrative; the building operating plan may also be known as "Owner's Operating Requirements" or similar. The operating plan includes the time-of-day schedules for each system for each of the eight day types (Monday to Sunday plus holidays), the mode of operation for each system when it is running (occupied vs. unoccupied; day vs. night, etc.), and the desired indoor conditions or setpoints for each schedule or mode. The operating plan accounts for any differences in needs or desired conditions for different portions of the project building, as well as any seasonal variations in operations patterns. The plan accounts for all the monitored space conditions used to control the base systems, i.e., air temperature, relative humidity, occupancy, light level, CO2 levels, room pressurization, duct static pressure, etc. as necessary to reflect any changes in the occupancy schedule, equipment run-time schedule, design set points and lighting levels.
You may use the LEED v4 version of this credit on v2009 projects. For more information check out this article.
This credit has an alternative compliance path available for the use of ISO 50001: Energy Management Systems. For more information see Pilot ACP 86: LEED 2009 EBOM ACPs for ISO 50001.
Implement no- and low-cost operational improvements that will immediately enhance building performance. Develop a capital plan for the completion of any major retrofits identified through the investigation and analysis phase.
Provides training and education to facility managers and other building staff and stakeholders.
Provides training on topics related to ASHRAE standards, HVAC systems and controls, electrical systems, and more.
This PDF provide building owners and managers with basic information about the retrocommissioning process and help them receive maximum value from commissioning existing buildings. See resources in Appendix A – Appendix J including a request for proposal checklist for retrocommissioning services, sample site assessment forms, sample master list, and strategies for increasing retrocommissioning cost-effectiveness.
Complete LEED Online documentation for achievement of EAc2.2 on a certified Gold LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. 2009 project in Denver, Colorado.
Sample LEED Online forms for all rating systems and versions are available on the USGBC website.
We're starting the audits for an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. project that is a university building. They have approved a renovations program over 4 years, area by area (roughly floor by floor) that will be influenced by our audit. However they must stay operational and its not possible to carry out all the mechanical improvements at once, furthermore new chillers will be implemented last due to remaining life of the existing ones. Do you think its possible to implement all low-cost or no cost improvements to the particular phase that we have selected for the EBOM certification and not throughout the whole building? This has numerous advantages including testing the impact of each improvement--which might be tweaked for a later phase. Secondly some of the items that would be low-cost replacements would not longer be if they are scheduled for full replacement soon--for example replacing a lamp now when both the lamp and its fitting will be replaced in 2 years. We're choosing on purpose the earliest phase which also has the least impact on occupancy and operations. My rationale would be that, with the lamp example, replacing twice is no longer low cost so only improvements scheduled for each phase are actually "low cost". But by showing that some of the higher-cost improvements are also being implemented during the performance period, and publishing the full construction phasing, I hope to show a commitment to the full implementation over all the phases. Otherwise we have to wait 5 years or longer to do the full certification and we miss the chance to make operational and behavioural changes now while the longer phased improvements are ongoing. We'll have a similar issue with EAc2.3. Any thoughts?
While the credit language requires all no-cost and low-cost energy conservation measures to be implemented during the performance period there is some leniency in instances such as yours. My advice would be to implement all the no-costs of the entire building (this typically includes adjustments to equipment runtimes) during the performance period and be strategic in how you determine the upper cost limit for "low-cost" improvements.
It would be best to provide your plan for energy improvements to GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). with your submission.
We have struggled with EAc2.2 and 2.3 on projects where energy improvement projects where already underway however we've always achieved both credits on such projects. As always, provide a detailed yet succinct narrative with your submission.
hope this helps!
Yes David, it does. I think its going to be too much of a reach to go for EAc2.3 since it would require retrocomissioning outgoing equipment in the rest of the building, but we'll do the Option 2 version of EAc2.1 and EAc2.2 using this strategy. It seems a reasonable way through a tricky project. Thanks again.
I agree with David, but will add one comment. Take a close look at the "low cost" items. Your example of a lamp is interesting. What if the replacement is going to an LED? The payback might be less than a year, and once the area is renovated, the lamp could be salvaged, and used in another building easily. There are many other examples where this would not be appropriate, but wanted to plant this idea on one reason to do work in an area even if it will be renovated.
I really like your idea of getting certification sooner than later, even if the plan is for 5 years. The timeline corresponds nicely with renewal, so you could get certification now at a more basic level, then gain a higher level in 5 years. You might want to consider v4 as well, with this kind of plan.
When submitting the reports for a LEED RCx project, one of the reports is for Capital Cost Energy Conservation Measures. Typically we recommend items to be implemented that have a payback of under 10 yrs. Currently the building owner had implemented our one recommendation and we are left with No capital cost measures. Is it a requirement (for approval purposes) to have a report for Capital Cost Energy Conservation Measures?
In another section of our report titled ‘Measured Evaluated but not Recommended’ we have recommended two items that each have a payback of over 20 years. If these items are recommended in lieu of items with a lesser pay back, they will skew the calculated total cost and energy savings throughout the report. Would it be preferred to see these in the Capital Cost section or would it be OK to leave them separate and not include a Capital Cost report in the submission of this project. Any assistance on this will be greatly appreciated.
Yes, it is required to have a list of capital improvement measures, and there is no minimum required number of capital improvement measures - in other words, if you only find one measure, that's ok! But the trick here is to also identify low/no cost measures (those with a very short payback or low/no cost for implementation, or O&M measures), that the team can implement that are outside of the capital improvement measures.
For the section titled ‘Measured Evaluated but not Recommended’, these would be considered "rejected measures" and kept separate.
Thanks for the quick response! We have approximately 6 Low cost/No cost measures in our report, but no measures that fit in the category of ‘Capital costs’. There are no items I can think of at this time to include for the report! If it is a requirement, I can try to think of a capital cost measure.
I'm wondering if all identified ECMs have to be included in a longer term capital improvement plan OR if the audit revealed a project with, say, a 12 year pay back period and high implementation cost we could consider that to not be a viable project and totally exclude it from our capital plan. If not, should we just exclude these expensive/long pay back ECMs from the ASHRAE Level II report completely and only include those projects that we would consider funding long term that met some threshold of cost/payback that we could accept. Thanks!
You can "reject" measures that do not meet your team's threshold for acceptably payback. What I've done is created a table of all the measures that includes the payback analysis, and then indicated in the notes column which ones the team rejects.
All - I always thought that they 5-year exception to the performance period rules on pg. 172 of the reference guide could likely be used for either option, commissioning or the ASHRAE Level II. But, word on the street is that it is intentionally limited to the ASHRAE option, and if you are using Option 1: Commissioning, the cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements.
2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. activities have to fall within the normal maximum 2 year performance period.
Just wanted to spread the word, since this was news to me.
See EA 2.1 comment thread here on LEED USER. Comments are probably in the wrong place but take it from a team that got rejected for that strategy - we had to go back in the 30 days between reviews and perform a full Level II. Talk about missing the "intent"
Any suggestions on a source for templates that can be used to document a staff training program? I am actually working with LEED EB v2.0, EAc3.1. Thanks!
The Californina Commissioning Collaborative has a template that can be used to document staff training. The training plan documentation template includes the training topic, who should receive the training, what the training consists of, when or how often the training should occur and who completed the training and date completed.
Benificial topics of the trainings may include:
OCCUPANT HEALTH & PRODUCTIVITY
POTABLE WATERPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. CONSUMPTION
Attendees of the trainings should include employees and contractors involved in major aspects of the the building operations and maintenance.
Hope this helps!
From reading your comment, it sounds like occupants and contractors involved in totally non-energy related positions must be trained as well...like people in Purchasing, for example, would have to receive training. Am I understanding this correctly? How far does this extend to contractors? If we purchase from an entity like Staples, are they required to have training, too?
That's a good question.
Putting the staff training requirement in EAc2.2 is a little mis-leading since it pertains to all management staff who are involved with building operations. This includes onsite personnel (engineers/property managers), contractors (cooling tower chemical management, pest management, landscape management, janitorial, etc..) and suppliers of building goods. You wouldn't be expected to train the entire company of Staples,but it may be required that you train the sales rep you deal with on an ongoing basis.
Hope this helps!
1. Do you have an example education program that you have successfully submitted to LEED?
2. Do you know of any online training programs that provide the broad range of sustainability topics related to existing building operations that this credit seems to require? The BOMA BEEP program seems to focus only on energy efficiency and the ASHRAE eLearning classes are mostly geared to new construction.
Thanks so much for your help,
Yes I do have a training template we have success with when completing EAc2.2.
The LEED online template requires only a narrative however we always received review comments on the training. We started uploading the training template, and the review comments stopped.
the USGBC has a bunch of online training programs: http://new.usgbc.org/courses/webinar-subscriptions
It is clear that the low cost/no cost items uncovered during the investigation phase in EAc2.1 must ALL be implemented to satisfy the requirements of EAc2.2.
My Question: Must ALL of the low-cost/no cost items discovered as part of the ASHRAE Level I assessment in EAp1 also be implemented for EAc2.2?
Ruairi, typically the EAc2.1 audit and the EAp1 audit would be the same process, so yes, both measures would be implemented.
Tristan, sorry I should have clarified that I meant the retro Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements.
2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. option under EAc2.1 and not the Lev II audit.
The EAp1 Level I audit would typically not be part of the EAc2.1 Retro Commissioning process and the types of low cost items included in the EAp1 audit would not neccessarily be major energy using systems operational improvements, e.g. "install vending misers on vending machines" verses "implement fan static pressure reset strategy"
The credit intent is:
To implement minor improvements and identify planned capital projects to ensure that the building’s major energy-using systems are repaired, operated and maintained effectively to optimize energy performance.
So my question remains, do you need to implement all low cost items identified in EAp1, particularly the ones that are not major building energy using systems operational improvements in order to satisfy the requirements of the Commissioning Credit EAc2.2?
The owner determines what is considered to be low-cost. So let them set the benchmark and any low-cost item you uncover during your retro-commissioning process that is within the owner's limit must be implemented.
This strategy has worked for me on previous LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. projects.
I am unclear as to what the recertification requirements would be for a project that obtained this credit with the original certification about a year ago. The program allows use of a level 2 energy audit done with the last 5 years to qualify for EAc2.1, which means it appears that we can use the audit done with the original certification for recertification. Do the measures that were identified in this audit and implemented with the original certification still count for recertification? Do we need to identify and install new no/low cost measures? What if no new no/low cost measures are found as the building hasn’t changed much in the last year?
I am unclear what you mean by recertify. The building is only required to recertify every 5 years. At this point a new ASHRAE Level II Audit would have to be performed.
Understood that recertification isn't required for 5 years, but it is an option to do so every year. The building owner in this case would like to recertify after one year in an attempt to obtain Silver certification as opposed to the basic certification level that was originally received.
Any word on this? We would like to recertify after 3 years. The audit should still be valid. What about the Low/no cost implementation?
Rachel, USGBC just released more detailed information on expectations for recertification.
This is for a 1st time EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. project (not recertification).
If Six Sigma Projects were initiated 5 years prior to LEED registration but implemented every year thereafter until the present time:
1) Will LEED allow the projects to be part of the submittals for EAc2.1, 2.1 and 2.3?
2) Just the projects within 2 years before end of performance period?
We are considering going the on-going commissioning route instead of ASHRAE Level II Audit which is limited to EAc2.1 and 2.2.
I think you will need to document projects conducted during the Performance Period.
Just for clarification, do you mean that we can include the Six Sigma projects that were executed during the performance period, or that the commissioning - investigation (EAc2.1) should be initiated during the performance period?
Hope to hear from you.
...just to add, full implementation of the Six Sigma program runs up to 2011, and began in 2006 since the building is occupied and minimum disturbance to occupants is a consideration. Projects were sequential upgrades of aircon equipment from chillers, to ahu1.Air-handling units (AHUs) are mechanical indirect heating, ventilating, or air-conditioning systems in which the air is treated or handled by equipment located outside the rooms served, usually at a central location, and conveyed to and from the rooms by a fan and a system of distributing ducts. (NEEB, 1997 edition)
2.A type of heating and/or cooling distribution equipment that channels warm or cool air to different parts of a building. This process of channeling the conditioned air often involves drawing air over heating or cooling coils and forcing it from a central location through ducts or air-handling units. Air-handling units are hidden in the walls or ceilings, where they use steam or hot water to heat, or chilled water to cool the air inside the ductwork.'s, to fans, to maintenance improvements and monitoring equipment, as well as another system upgrade due this year.
What if a building has already implemented several energy conservation measures (low and High cost) in the last year but no commissioning plan was in place at that time (and no LEED in their minds)... can the project pursue EAc2.1 and prepare a commissioning plan with a performance period of three months and EAc2.2 with a performance period of 1.5 years, noting that the measures were implemented before the plan was in place? Must both performance periods have to match for these 2 particular credits? Is retrospective commissioning possible?
Unfortunately, I think the performance periods do have to match. The LEED EBO&M process is tricky and requires us to look at the building as it stands now. This credit specifically asks the user to implement the cost saving measures found during the EAc2.1 investigation.
However, if any of the previous cost saving measures are operational changes they may help with other credits. Additionally, if they are saving you energy they will get you points under EA1 with a higher energy star score.
Thank you Pierce.
Has anyone attempted this credit and used either of the two resources listed (ASRHAE or other)? Aside from the 24 hours per year per person requirement, the GBOM Reference Guide is fairly vague on O&M training topics. What are some topics besides sustainable operations (too broad) and energy efficiency? Can this training overlap with IAQIndoor air quality: The quality and attributes of indoor air affecting the health and comfort building occupants. IAQ encompasses available fresh air, contaminant levels, acoustics and noise levels, lighting quality, and other factors. Manager Training, Cooling Tower Water Managment Training, and Green CleaningGreen cleaning is the use of cleaning products and practices that have lower environmental impacts and more positive indoor air quality impacts than conventional products and practices. Training?
Hi John, I agree that "sustainable building operations" is rather vague. In past projects, we have interpreted this requirement as focusing the staff training with the intent that changes made as a result of Commissioning or Energy Audit activities will not be reversed during normal building operation. In particular, staff should understand and have a working knowledge of any Functional Test Protocols, implementation of energy efficiency measures and improvements, along with the commissioning process in general. To your point, this often includes IAQIndoor air quality: The quality and attributes of indoor air affecting the health and comfort building occupants. IAQ encompasses available fresh air, contaminant levels, acoustics and noise levels, lighting quality, and other factors. Management components and cooling tower water management protocols.
Director of Operations
Transwestern Sustainability Services
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2016 – BuildingGreen, Inc.