This credit is your project’s opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the green building industry and to let your team contribute creative approaches to the field of sustainable design. It’s also a great way for your project to achieve up to five additional points.
There are three different ways to achieve points under this credit:
There are plenty of opportunities to earn Path 1 ID credits through no- and low-cost strategies. A great example is 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., which requires the use of low-toxicity cleaning agents, cleaning machines that reduce impact on indoor air quality, and training maintenance staff in hazard reduction.
Take a close look at all the sustainability practices that your project is already planning or participating in and examine the possibilities of applying them to an ID credit. Some opportunities include recycling, composting, procurement and cleaning policies, landscape management, education initiatives, and many more.
There is a consistent source of ID credit opportunities for all rating systems to be found in the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance (EBOM) rating system (see LEEDuser's guide to EBOM for more information). Implementing operational practices and policies—for example, site management plans, purchasing programs, and green cleaning—can help you achieve ID credits and set the stage for successful, sustainable operation of your project building.
Operational credits fall outside the realm of design and construction, and the creation of a plan is easy with the available templates, but the commitment to implement the plan is just as important, if not more so.
It is common to use an educational program about the sustainability of the LEED project to earn a point under IDc1. Educational programs must consist of at least two separate components, including a kiosk, a website, a case study, a lecture series, signage, etc.
To meet the requirement of having two components, you should understand some key distinctions. For example, a kiosk in a building lobby is typically viewed as signage and would be part of an overall signage program, not a second component. The information presented on the kiosk may also impact how it is categorized—it should be unique from that which is presented elsewhere. For example, if a project team creates a website (educational outreach) and places a kiosk (signage) in the lobby, but the kiosk only includes a link to the website, both of these items would only count as one component of the educational program. In contrast, if a project team implements a signage program (signage) and a kiosk, but the kiosk includes an in‐depth case study (case study), this could be viewed as two individual components. The educational program must also be about building-specific strategies employed on the LEED project as opposed to a marketing or user education tool.
A staff sustainability team could be part of an educational strategy, but simply saying that one has been created in a narrative does not provide enough information. You should also provide specific information regarding the goals and methods of delivering the sustainable education component to the public or staff, such as work on signage, lectures, or outreach for home improvement, etc. Also, keep in mind that the group should distinguish itself from other strategies.
Innovation credits are often denied, but 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). typically encourages project teams to try another strategy if one they have proposed is not feasible to meet the credit requirements. The credit may be denied outright with instruction to submit an alternative strategy, or denied pending clarification with technical advice asking for more explanation of how the submitted strategy is viable or the option to submit an alternative. Project teams may attempt new strategies in the construction phase if a particular innovation credit was denied in the design phase.
Usually the answer to this question is "maybe." There are very few preapproved innovation strategies (education is one of them—see above), so with all but a few it is hard to say definitively whether or not it will be approved on a LEED project. However, there are some reliable guidelines that any project should consider:
You should also consider that earning an ID credit basically requires you to write a LEED credit, set certain quantifiable measures, and meet them. So a good test is to put your idea in terms of a LEED credit. What is the credit name, intent, and requirements? Could this same credit be used on another project (is it repeatable?), or is it extremely unique?
Many ideas will not hold up after applying these tests. Remember that a strategy might be a good idea even if it is not recognized for an ID credit, and that not every good idea meets the standards demanded by LEED.
Consider whether one or both paths to earning points under this credit are suitable for your project:
No more than three of the points can be awarded for Exemplary Performance through Path 2, so to max out your points here you’ll need to also pursue Path 1 – Innovative Strategies.
Brainstorm strategies for ID credits (Path 1) early, and involve your entire team, including designers, builders, owners, facilities managers, and occupants. Consider sustainability strategies that may fall outside the LEED rating system. Find out if the team has worked on any past LEED projects that pursued interesting ID credits.
Using your preliminary LEED scorecard, note which Exemplary Performance thresholds might be attainable. Credits that are eligible for Exemplary Performance are noted throughout the LEED Reference Guide.
If considering Path 1, develop a list of 6–8 ID credits that may be appropriate for your project and discuss the opportunities, costs, and barriers to implementation of each with your project team.
When pursuing ID credits under Path 1 – Innovation in Design, use the published catalog of ID credits from pre-LEED 2009 rating systems as a reference for possible approaches. However, note that simply because a strategy has been approved for a project in the past does not necessarily guarantee that it will be approved on a different project. In other words, the approach must be specific to the project in order to be considered for this credit.
Attempt as many Path 2 – Exemplary Performance credits as possible. You can only earn points for three credits, but try for more than that, to maximize environmental benefit, and your chances of earning all three points—in case one falls through.
Setting these increased thresholds as a goal early in the process can be cost-effective and make the ID credit for Exemplary Performance fairly easy to achieve.
Innovation in Design credits developed for Path 1 must be comprehensive and provide a quantifiable environmental benefit. ID credits are not awarded solely for using specific products or technologies, especially when the product aids in the achievement of another LEED credit. For example, if you purchase highly efficient windows, you cannot gain an ID credit for this because it will contribute to the overall energy efficiency of your building, which is included in EAp2 and EAc1.
The intent of a proposed innovation credit cannot be identical to or repetitive of the intent of LEED credits within the rating system in which your project is currently pursuing credit points. (Looking to other rating systems for ideas, however, is recommended.)
Other rating sytems such as LEED-EBOM can be a great resource for ideas for innovation credits. (See LEEDuser's list of LEED-EBOM credits and associated guidance.) When adapting these credits, it may be appropriate to meld the requirements to fit your rating system. For example, if pursuing LEED-EBOM MRc4: Reduced Mercury in Lamps, you would not in a design and construction rating system be required to document the solid waste management strategy which is a part of that credit, which is operations-focused.
Create a detailed narrative or plan for the ID credits that you have chosen and coordinate input from various interested parties. For example, if you are developing a Comprehensive Recycling Plan, you would need input from the staff responsible for coordinating the collection efforts, the recycling company to confirm that they can expand the scope of recycling beyond what is required in the LEED prerequisite, and the occupants to confirm that receptacles for recyclables are accessible and convenient and that the expectations of what should be recycled are understood.
Target more approaches than needed, with the expectation that some may be eliminated during design and construction. Submit your five best approaches, but have at least one or two backup strategies in case any are denied during the design submittal review.
Verify that design-related ID credits have been included in the plans and specifications.
Complete documentation in LEED Online.
For Path 1 – Innovation in Design credits, documentation includes:
For Path 2 – Exemplary Performance, the ID credits are tied to those you have already documented for the standard credit page. This is an easy selection on the credit page.
Document as many ID credits in LEED Online as you can for the design submittal. This way you can have confirmation that you have achieved the credit. If your anticipated credits are rejected, then you can submit others for the construction submittal.
For post-construction or operations-related credits, circulate draft plans among the owner, maintenance staff, and occupants if necessary to coordinate important components of the credit strategy and confirm your approach.
Track your design-submittal ID credits so that you know whether they have been accepted. If they have not, read the comments from the reviewer and consider what it might take to achieve them or whether you might be better off pursuing a different ID credit.
If you choose to pursue a different credit, prepare the documentation for the submittal promptly.
Commit to implementing the submitted ID credits in the way that they were proposed. Ensure that policies and plans are followed through and that there are enough human and financial resources to achieve the goals of the credits. In some cases, the successful implementation of these credits will help to demonstrate the success of the project as a whole into the future.
Implement the operational ID credits that you submitted, even if they weren’t approved. Often these credits can have considerable cultural impact on the occupants by making sustainability strategies tangible.
Operational strategies are intended to provide a platform for continuous improvement, which often leads to both material and financial savings. Be ambitious in the implementation of these strategies, and continue to set high goals for your project, year after year.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
To provide design teams and projects the opportunity to achieve exceptional performance above the requirements set by the LEED Green Building Rating System and/or innovative performance in green building categories not specifically addressed by the LEED Green Building Rating System.
Credit can be achieved through any combination of the Innovation in Operations and Exemplary PerformanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. paths as described below:
Achieve significant, measurable environmental performance using a strategy not addressed in the LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations, LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development, or LEED 2009 for Schools Rating Systems.
One point is awarded for each innovation achieved. No more than 5 points (for NC and CS) and 4 points (for Schools) under IDc1 may be earned through Path 1—Innovation in design.
Identify the following in writing:
Achieve exemplary performance in an existing LEED 2009 for New Construction, Schools and Core & Shell prerequisite or credit that allows exemplary performance as specified in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design & Construction, 2009 Edition. An exemplary performance point may be earned for achieving double the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold of an existing credit in LEED.
One point is awarded for each exemplary performance achieved. No more than 3 points under IDc1 may be earned through Path 2—Exemplary performance.
Attempt a pilot credit available in the Pilot Credit Library at www.usgbc.org/pilotcreditlibrary. Register as a pilot credit participant and complete the required documentation. Projects may pursue up to 4 Pilot Credits total.
You may use the LEED v4 version of this credit on v2009 projects. For more information check out this article.
Substantially exceed a LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations performance credit such as energy performance or water efficiency. Apply strategies or measures that demonstrate a comprehensive approach and quantifiable environment and/or health benefits.
Supplementary description of ID credit compliance from USGBC.
Listing of hundreds of ID credit approaches.
Enhanced acoustical design is only a prerequisite and credit in the LEED for Schools rating system only, but it is a good candidate for use as an innovation credit in other rating systems. Armstrong, a major manufacturer, pursued acoustics as an innovation path in its own LEED-EB certification in 2007. Shown here is a summary of how Armstrong earned the point.
Denali National Park and Preserve is the home to panoramic vistas that draw visitors from around the world. The intent of this innovation credit was to document efforts to protect and preserve the visitors center viewshed as part of the sustainable design of the facility.
An "active design" or "design for health" credit successfully earned an innovation point through IDc1 for a New York City project. The project wanted to comprehensively integrate into the design of the project features that would encourage regular physical activity in occupants, while also bringing environmental benefits. The project team hopes that other projects will use this thorough documentation as an example to pursue similar approaches.
We recently submitted an Innovation in Design credit for the design and installation of a radon mitigation system at a recently completed project. The submission included the project narrative, system drawings, US EPA radon information as well as post construction air quality testing reports.
The ID credit was denied by the reviewer during our first submission. The review comments received were:
1. quantitative performance improvements (comparing a baseline and design case)
2. a comprehensive strategy (more than one product or process). The submitted strategy is not quantified using a baseline and design case. In addition, only those strategies that have significant environmental benefits beyond standard sustainable design practices are applicable to Innovation in Design credits.
Has anyone recently successfully submitted for a credit like this? If so, what additional information was provided to satisfy the reviewer?
Radon is now an indoor contaminant much like VOCs and other pollutants. You cannot sell a house now without a Radon test, and if it is high, a mitigation system has to be installed. My house has crawl space, and it is vented for moisture AND Radon, even though it is not occupied. In commercial construction it is not normally a problem due to predominance of slab on grade configuration, and if there is a basement, it is normally pretty tight and there is some sub-floor drainage system as well. So, you would need to show a baseline where mitigation is not normal or not required AND that your solution is an improvement over that system.
So it would seem to me that Radon mitigation is not within the goal of a innovation credit. But as I often say, I am not an employee or reviewer for 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)..
We received feedback from 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). that our 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. Policy lacks "Standard cleaning procedures to protect vulnerable building occupants. These procedures may identify occupants who are disproportionately affected by cleaning practices and propose methods to minimize impacts on those groups. These methods may include adjustments to cleaning procedures, frequencies, or timing." I can't find anything about this in EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. 2009 or v4. Any examples?
NC projects that utilize 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. Policy as an Innovation point must following the guidance as written by the innovation credit language found at: http://www.usgbc.org/node/4552322?return=/credits/new-construction/v2009...
The third bullet states "Specifically address cleaning to protect vulnerable building occupants"
Hope this helps.
Here is an example of 'vulnerable building occupant' language:
"Vulnerable occupants include those with emphysema, allergies, asthma, COPD, or other respiratory problems, pregnant women, children, and the elderly. Necessary janitorial staffing levels shall be determined in order to deliver sufficient cleaning for vulnerable building occupants and visitors. The janitorial vendor will provide a cleaning program that includes the products and practices used when considering at-risk occupants. These protocols should include, but are not limited to, microfiber technology, vacuum filtration, and vacuum bag replacement procedures."
We are considering options for innovation credits. Do you think that the following solution could be treated as an innovation:
There will be a medical point in the building that only building employees can use (the company is partialy funding its services for the employees). Moreover in the neighbouring building which is also owned by the Investor there is a massage point so the employees can make appointments every Friday to get a massage during work time.
Since the Investor is taking care of building occupants comfort and the employees don't have to take a car (pollution reduction) to go to a doctor we wanted to include these solutions as an innovation credit. Has anyone used this kind of approch for an innovation credit?
I have a data centre in Montreal that is being assessed against BD+C NC v 2009. I am looking at targeting an Innovation in Design credit for "Purchasing - lamps OM v4 MR Credit".
If the project achieves a weighted average mercury content of 22 picograms per lumen1. A lumen is a unit of luminous flux equal to the light emitted in a unit solid angle by a uniform point source of 1 candle intensity.
2. A measurement of light output.-hr, is my project eligible to achieve two Innovation in Design points, since the Exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. level is below 35 picograms per lumen-hr? Or is the exemplary level point only available to O+M v4 projects?
I am posting my question here, since it appears the v2.2 ID forum is closed for new comments.
I have a v2.2 LEED-NC Campus project working on the final construction submission. It is a mental health facility that has 6 buildings, one of which is dedicated to children. We were already awarded the School as a Teaching Tool ID point, which is being utilized in the children's facility.
For the remaining buildings, all of which work with adults at varying levels of social function and have associated staff and visitors, do you think it would be acceptable to use a separate Green Education ID credit to provide materials for the different audience? I understand this is considered too similar for typical projects, but I feel our case is a little different.
This is our final Construction submission, so we will not get another chance to attempt the final ID credit. It could make the difference between Silver and Gold for all of the buildings. Please let me know of your opinions. Thanks!
Emily, you can still post on our v2.2 forums—not sure whey they appeared to be closed.
For your question, I would defer to anyone who might have experience in a similar situation, but my sense is that they are different enough topics to earn both credits. Given the stakes I wouldn't hesitate to contact 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). and see if they would give you a quick opinion without going through the appeals or CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide process.
Yeah, I'm not sure why the v2.2 ID page looked different, but it wasn't giving me any of the boxes to add a new comment, unless I wanted to respond to an already-exisitng post. I made sure I was logged in, and tried it on multi-page and single page view. Weird!
I am currently working on a project where all lighting is LED (exterior and Interior). We are going to attempt the Low-Mercury credit for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. as an ID credit and have successfully achieved this credit on multiple projects. My question is about the Sustainable Purchasing Policy. Does this still need to be done considering there isn't any mercury on the project? I would greatly appreciate any feedback from anyone who has submitted for this credit with all LED fixtures.
Nena, have you checked LEEDuser's guidance on that credit page? I think this question has been addressed there or in the forum.
I submitted an all LED CI project, and had it accepted without any comments.
Using the sample template from EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems., we only filled in the first section under "Establishment", the "Table MRc4-1. Lamp Purchasing Plan", and supplied the related cut sheets, for both the LEDs, AND for their fluorescent comparisons (which was extremely time consuming for a 300,000SF project, by the way). We checked the alternative compliance box at the end of the template and provided the following text:
"This project is attempting this point as an ID strategy for our LEED-CI project. Since we are not an EBOM project, we do not have a performance period; we have left all fields related to performance period data blank. Also, our project does not include any outdoor areas, so we do not have any outdoor fixtures.
Our project contains only LED fixtures. There are no compact fluorescent or incandescent lamps anywhere in the project. Therefore, all lamps reported contain 0 mercury. All product cutsheets have been provided for reference. Linear and compact fluorescent equivalents are provided for efficiency comparisons. There are instances where those comparisons do not apply (based on fixtures being completely custom, or products that do not have a comparable fluorescent version). Those types are indicated on the cover sheet of the fluorescent comparisons."
Hope this helps. I'd think an NC project would be the same. We have used this example on several NC projects since it was reviewed, we just haven't had those NC projects go through review yet.
With zero Hg-containing lamps, this should be a slam dunk. I've written ID credit proposals in the past using the installed lamps (not the purchased lamps as used in O+M) and provided a calculation to show the pico-grams per lumen1. A lumen is a unit of luminous flux equal to the light emitted in a unit solid angle by a uniform point source of 1 candle intensity.
2. A measurement of light output.-hour (landing under the 80 or 100 threshold, depending on which version of the O+M credit I was referencing).
I'd suggest including a simple narrative stating that you use zero Hg in lighting equipment, and concluding that this empirically proves compliance with your proposal (keep in mind an ID credit needs to include proposed requirements, which should mirror the O+M credit to the extent that it is applicable). That said, empirical proofs haven't always been received as coherently as I would have hoped by some review teams, although in this case it would be hard for your reviewer to miss that zero total Hg means zero pico-grams per lumen-hour.
My project is pursuing LEED NC, and was hoping to use MRp2 as an innovation credit. I am assuming the minimum percent requirements associated with MRc7, MRc8 and MRc9 all applicable to the MRp2 policy. This is the feeling I get from the LEED User policy template.
I ask because my project is an ambulatory outpatient specialty care clinic. The client is unsure they can hit the 50% minimum required by MRc7. In referencing other, more healthcare focused, standards the client says somewhere around 30% is generally thought of as the goal. Has anyone had success using a lesser percentage in such a situation? I can't find anything comparable in LEED for Healthcare.
We've received a successful CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide ruling on our Green Education Audio Tour package, which is a slide show with audio (recorded on site), and an online case study. The audio tour is distributed via phone, SMS, web, podcast and a green building app.
CIR is too long to post here; feel free to contact me to have it forwarded. jackie AT greenbuildingaudiotours DOT com
I have a project that bought and used rebar in their facility that was from a program called "Guns to Rebar". Guns were collected and melted down and sold as rebar. Do you think it would be possible to achieve an innovation credit for this or would it only be utilized in the Recycled Content credit?
Hi Rachel, although interesting (and socially charged!) I doubt this would meet the criteria of a quantifiable, measurable benefit. Playing devil's advocate (I'm not taking sides in the gun debate here!), if the intent was to eliminate guns for social reasons, from an environmental perspective they could be made non-functional without melting them down (and all of the GHGGreenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by Earth’s surface, clouds, and the atmosphere itself. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are a root cause of global climate change. associated with that process).
Good luck with your project! David
If you are in need of an innovation credit, you may want to think about this more creatively - perhaps you can argue it more as educational tool, and as a step towards social equity. If you are planning on making this a part of your "sustainable story" that talks to reclaiming neighborhood safety through responsibly sourcing materials, you might just make a good argument.
I have an ID credit for Green Education pending because the number of signs in the Signage Program is not enough to be considered comprehensive. Does anyone have an estimate for how many signs are required to meet the intent of this portion of the credit? Each sign outlines one credit (I understand the number many vary according to how much informaiton is provided on each). Thanks!
Have always used a minimum of 10 as a rule of thumb, never had an issue with it.
I understand the use of the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. 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. requirements to establish your plan for an NC ID credit. However, an intrinsic part of an EBOM plan is the compliance metrics. So does that mean that our NC Green Cleaning plan only needs to demonstrate 20% compliance with the chemicals and equipment being used?
And what about the standards being used? EBOM reviewers will not permit any compliance standards that are not listed in the reference manual. Can an NC green cleaning plan elect to use an industry standard other than GreenSeal or Environmental Choice?
Michelle, I would advise writing your plan as close as possible to the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. plan, including use of accepted standards. I would set compliance metrics at the level of the prerequisite, or higher if desired for the project objectives.
Our LEED NC 2009 project is located in a LEED certified Neighborhood Developement.
Can it deserve a credit in Innovation in Design?
thanks in advance,
While you can't earn an ID credit in v2009 just for locating within a certified LEED for Neighborhood Development project, there are a few opportunities to earn the ID credit under v2009 if you pursue LEED ND specific credits (which may have already occurred on the project site in parallel with the LEED ND certification).
Specifically take a look at:
ND v3 NPDc4 Option 2 Mixed-income diverse communities
ND v3 NPDc12 Community outreach and involvement
ND v3 GIBc6 Historic resource preservation and adaptive use
SSpc82 Local food production
LEED v4 projects can directly earn LT points (up to 16) for locating within a Stage 2 or Stage 3 under the Pilot or 2009 rating systems, or Certified Plan or Certified Project under the LEED v4 rating system LEED ND project. http://www.usgbc.org/node/2615490?return=/credits/new-construction/v4
I was looking through LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. and saw IEQc2.1, Occupant Comfort Survey. This seems like a pretty easy credit to achieve. However, it's kind of the same thing as NC IEQc7.2, Thermal Comfort Verification...making it worse for us is that this is a residential building, so we are actually ineligible for IEQc7.2, Thermal Comfort Verification. Is there any way I can justify submitting for the EBOM credit as an ID point?
Only certain LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. v2009 credits are approved for use by NC projects as ID credits. LEED-EBOM v2009 IEQc2.1 is not one of them for the overlap that you note. If the same credit/intent exists in your rating system, you typically aren't allowed to use the other rating system credit as an ID slot.
You can find the list of eligible other rating system credits on the very last page of the LEED-NC Project Submittal Tips (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-project-submittal-tips-new-construct...).
I'm working on a semiconductor fab that is part of a LEED campus project. The campus has a well-established, campus-wide 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. program in place. Other LEED office projects on this campus have earned an ID credit for green cleaning. The client is committed to this. Cleaning in the fab is limited to packaged lint-free wipes pre-soaked in ultra pure water (UPW), some with very dilute iso-propyl alcohol (IPA). No other chemicals are used. Management is considering eliminating these dilute IPA wipes and using just UPW wipes. Questions: (1) what is the consensus on whether dilute IPA wipes align/don't align with green cleaning protocol? (2) Are there any potential barriers that this fab could expect in pursuing the ID credit for green cleaning? Thanks. David
David, this is a pretty specialized question... I'm sorry but I'm not familiar enough with the industry standards to offer an opinion. Let us know if you gain some insight.
I received a comment on a design phase review that since this is a core & shell building, the owner has to either include 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. in the lease, or agree to control the cleaning for both the base buildingThe base building includes elements such as the structure, envelope, and building-level mechanical systems, such as central HVAC, etc. and the tenant spaces. We can't do a lease agreement, since some tenants have already been signed, so I will ask the owner to control cleaning for the entire building, including tenant spaces.
The question is, how long must the green cleaning contract last? If I am obligating the owner to clean the entire site, I want the contract to be as short as possible, but I assume the LEED reviewers will not accept anything too short (like month-to-month or whatever). Is there any specific requirement in the credit as to how long this contract must be? Has anyone had any experience with a contract term for this credit? Thanks!
If I had to choose an appropriate minimum duration (which is inconveniently absent from appendix 4 of the LEED 2009 BD+C Reference Guide - where it could and should be listed), 2 years sounds reasonable, and is the required duration for some other ongoing owner commitments such as green power purchases (EAc6).
Generally speaking, the lease agreements based approach is related to the TI fit-out, not operations, so while this exact example (and the reviewer response) is called out in the Reference Guide, it is a poor fit for this type of ongoing commitment. This is likely the reason that nobody defined a minimum length for this - at least as far as I could find with a cursory search.
What are the requirements to do a Green Educational Building? Thanks.
Assuming you are talking about a green building outreach program, you will need to select two of the following:
- Green Building Tours
- Case Study
This approach was established in one of the very early CIRs, which was dated 9/24/2001. That said, I didn't find it in the LEED Interpretations database, so you would likely want to track that ruling down to confirm it still applies for LEED 2009 projects.
Better yet, scroll down to the conversation immediately prior to this one, where the question is discussed comprehensively.
You can have a wonderful environmental education program, but if it doesn't talk about the LEED building, it will get rejected. Just had a long discussion with a LEED reviewer after a denied credit, who said as much. We have an education program that reaches tens of thousands of people and educates them about how to be responsible shoreline owners at a popular recreation lake, touching on erosion control, protection of natural areas, and many other items, but if there aren't signs and a building tour (or a classroom unit focusing on the LEED building as a teaching tool, etc.) educational program ID credits will be summarily rejected. There isn't anything in writing that comes out and says this is an ID requirement, but that's apparently the line the reviewers hold.
For something in writing, check out the Innovation Catalog on the USGBC LEED Credit Website (http://www.usgbc.org/node/4831014?return=/credits/new-construction/v2009...). This guidance includes requirements such as “Must include comprehensive information about the LEED strategies used in the building/tenant spaceTenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space..”
These requirements differ somewhat from those spelled out in the original, 2001 LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. that introduced Education as an ID strategy. I am not sure how long this version has been on the website, but it seems to reflect the approach that Reviewers are taking now.
We had Green Building Education approved as a Master Site Credit. We took a campus wide approach to education with green campus tours and materials.
We've had the credit awarded on our Master Site Projects and had it awarded, with the same campus wide approach materials as master site, on a project within the same campus boundary but not part of the master site.
And we just recently had the credit denied on another project within the same boundary (same materials provided) saying that the education needs to be "project specific."
The projects are all part of the same block. How can it be approved on one project and not the other? Isn't this the entire purpose of being able to take campus wide approach to credits? Isn't this one of the reasons projects are in blocks?
We have an email into LEED Coach.
We are required to address resilient design (e.g. against sea level rise, storm surge) in our project.
Does anyone have any experience or words of advice about this?
Resilience is a hot topic in sustainability, it is possible this would work as an ID credit. Be sure to include more than one aspect (resilience against wind, against water, against hail damage, against increased summer design temperatures, against loss of grid power etc etc) because they'll reject ID credits that focus on only "one product or process".
Is there any feature in LEED online to lock the credits not to be changed by other team members ? I was about to submit for design final submission but then the owner postponed it for one attachment. Everything is ready to go and I have already gone through the checklist. Now, I do want to keep all the related credits in locked position until I submit it because I do not want go through and check every single attachment and form again.
go to the "Team" page on LEED Online and click on "exclusive access". Then only the Team Manager and Administrator have full access to all the credits.
This is correct but I wanted to add a note. There is a real challenge with this (that I understand the LEED Online team is trying to correct) when using CAMPUS. When you register a master site that has multiple building projects on the site, all of the members are listed under MASTER SITE. Although you can restrict access, as Deborah pointed out, you can not restrict the entire team from seeing work on every project. So, in my current situation, there are three architects, seven engineers, several landscape architects, etc. etc. etc. on three distinct projects on the Master Site. Currently there is no way to even mark which project is theirs. As we register more projects under a single Master Site, the challenge is compounded.
The recommendation to the LEED Online team is that project team members be assigned under their project on a campus, not under the Master Site "team" and that viewing access be limited to their specific projects PLUS Master Site credits. There is no need for everyone to see every credit on a campus. Professional firms who compete every day are quietly benefiting from viewing others' work/plans/documentation in LEED Online.
My Client wants to occupy the Community Center building during proposed phased renovation. There are about 20 admin staff, 35 preschool children, language classes, dance/aerobics classes, weddings and conferences that take place daily. The building was built in the 1960s and most likely contains asbestos and lead.
I want to convince him to have a Hazardous Waste Report performed and then close the building during renovation and find other venues for the other users during the year construction.
Can we get an Innovation credit for this Life/safety & Air Quality strategy?
Ritch, what is the innovation angle?
It sounds a bit like what you're recommending is fairly common sense, if not perhaps required on a regulatory basis. I don't see the LEED angle, myself. Looks to me like there is enough merit in the suggestion on its own, without the extra LEED carrot.
It's a carrot for the Client to spend money he doesn't want to spend. I'm going to make the recommendation anyway but if there's something in it for him he's usually more willing to pursue it.
Ritch—What you describe sounds an awful lot like LEED for Schools Prerequisite SSp2, Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), which calls for a Phase I ESA, followed by a Phase II ESA if contamination is suspected, and then remediation if contaminants are found.
The “Bird’s Eye View” comments on LEEDuser’s SSp2 webpage (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/Schools-2009/SSp2) point out that the Phase I ESA has become common, and that some commercial real estate lenders may even require it. Therefore, ESAs are often a normal development expense. The downside is that, if the ESAs uncover contamination, remediation can be expensive.
The upside is that the finished building is safer, and the Owner may be less liable than if contaminants had been discovered later. Finally, if remediation includes abatement of asbestos or certain other contaminants (not lead paint) the project can earn SSc3 BrownfieldAbandoned, idled, or under used industrial and commercial facilities/sites who expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination (may include hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants). They can be in urban, suburban, or rural areas. EPA's Brownfields initiative helps communities mitigate potential health risks and restore the economic vitality of such areas or properties. (EPA) Redevelopment (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/SSc3).
Is this carrot enough?
Thanks Jon. I hadn't considered it a BrownfieldAbandoned, idled, or under used industrial and commercial facilities/sites who expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination (may include hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants). They can be in urban, suburban, or rural areas. EPA's Brownfields initiative helps communities mitigate potential health risks and restore the economic vitality of such areas or properties. (EPA) site. Great suggestion.
Getting back on-topic: Going for SSc3 gives you one more potential credit, but if you are still looking for IDc1 ideas, try pursuing one of the Pilot Credits.
To document IDc1, you must show that your innovation is comprehensive, quantifiable, & “significantly better than standard sustainable design practices.” This last one can be the hardest because it requires you first to identify just which sustainable practices are “standard.” This can be a moving target. The Pilot Credits offer “pre-approved” strategies that USGBC already sees as “beyond the standard.”
I have also found that, if your proposal resembles an existing Pilot Credit in any way, LEED Reviewers tend to compare the two and question why your innovation’s scope, metrics, & thresholds differ from the Pilot Credit. Although USGBC certainly never intended to promote Pilot Credits in lieu of encouraging project teams to develop their own Innovations, in my experience, LEED Review Teams tend to nudge projects in that direction.
AND, of course, don’t forget to check out the Innovation Catalog in the USGBC LEED Credit Library. These, too are strategies that have worked for others. Many former Pilot Credits have closed recently and graduated to the Innovation Catalog, so the catalog now offers several more options than it did in previous iterations. (I’m impressed!)
If you want to develop your own ID Credits, study the examples in the Pilot Credit Library & Innovation Catalog. They could help you discern what qualifies as “innovative” & “comprehensive” and show you ways to develop metrics for quantifying your innovations.
I previously filed an innovation credit with my design preliminary submission and received an comment from 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). therefore it is pending. I am getting ready to submit my design final package but want to apply for a different innovation credit and defer it to the construction package. Would it be done ? If so, do I need to mention in my response that I am changing the credit and deferring it to the construction package ?
Matt, it seems fine to defer to Construction. The Design review is more a benefit to you to get credits reviewed on the sooner side.
Adding a bit more detail: Yes, you can submit a different ID strategy in the construction review. I would just withdrawl the ID design credit in the scorecard. For the new ID strategy, go to Add/Remove credits in LEED online and select the construction phase option for that credit number. Does that make sense?
This question has 2 parts.
1). Our project would like to submit LEEDV4 Fundamental and Enhanced 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. for Envelope only as ID points in a project registered for LEED 2009. The project is doing Fundamental Cx for the MEP systems. Can you confirm the project will be able to earn these points if Enhanced Cx is not pursued under 2009 for the MEP systems?
2) we intend to follow the full extent of envelope Cx from design - warranty following NIBS Guideline. One question is allowable sampling for functional testing of finest ration and panel assemblies. Will mockup testing then rigorous field observation satisfy the functional test requirements, or is there a minimum threshold for assembly sampling that must be met? I didn't see definitive guidance on testing methods which should be applied.
Comment to Question 1: Yes, it has been pretty consistent that an ID point is awarded for envelope 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., but you would only get 1 point, not 2 like you would under v4.
Comment on Question 2: While I do not an envelope 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., I play one on TV...no sorry, I have worked with many very qualified providers over the years. Frankly, I think you will see scope all over the map. My main comment would be that while MEP commissioning has tremendous value during the testing phase, in envelopes, it has to be designed and detailed right, then the submittals have to be right, and initial installation must be checked (or mocked up). If you wait for the final installation, and it fails, lawsuits probably follow, as fixes become expensive. So the more work done early, the better. Personally, I would think a mockup test, and then maybe a test early in installation followed by observation would be a good method, but like the TV doc, that is about all my advice is worth.
I realize I never properly thanked you for the response to my question.
We are in between preliminary and final design review, and are thinking of pursuing an I&D credit for Green Building Education. It is not clear to us from reviewing the information if it is a design credit or construction credit? Or can we submit for it during either review phase?
We have found it works better for us to submit as a construction credit, as there will be more data available - percentage of recycled material, as an example - at that stage.
Nonetheless, start preparing for it at the design stage, especially if you plan to install signage.
IDc1 is uniquely labeled as either design or construction, and depending on the selected innovation strategy, will usually fit better into one area than the other. I agree with Deborah that GBE (assuming you are doing 2 of the following: tour, signage, and/or case study) fits best into the construction submittal, since while the documentation requirements are fairly loose for ID credits, it is advisable to include signage photos, a draft of the case study, and/or a tour outline so that the certification reviewer can see that the measures address the project comprehensively.
Rick, did you submit this ID for final design review? Did you have any news about it? I want to submit this strategy also as an ID for a few projects and until now there is no certainty about if it's a design or construction credit.
This is an official answer for this matter from the 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).:
"Thank you for contacting GBCI. Your project team can submit the education program ID credit in either the Design or Construction review. It shouldn't make a different to the review team."
Hope this help you all.
Hi, we documented an ID credit where the comment are:
The strategy consists of ensuring the survival and reproduction of plants while promoting the care and value of nature among the people. Documentation describing the strategy has been provided. An Innovation in Design strategy must be significantly better than standard sustainable design practices and meet two basic criteria: 1. quantitative performance improvements (comparing a baseline and design case) and 2. a comprehensive strategy (more than one product or process)
"However, the community outreach strategy is not quantified nor significantly better than standard sustainable design practices"
The question is, in this case for the community outreach strategy
: What are the standard sustainable design practices? and How can I quantified it?
Thank you in advance
To substantiate this as an eligible ID credit strategy, it will be the responsibility of the project team to hang some metrics on this and show a "significant" improvement. While this sounds potentially insurmountable, you are lucky here in that LEED has deemed "biodiversity" as one of the 7 Impact Categories from LEED v4, so while the hard scientist in me would prefer that these benefits be quantified in more concrete units of measure (like tons of carbon dioxide), it is likely that a simple increase in the number of established species could alone warrant a quantification, as LEED appears to accept an increase in biodiversity as inherently good without qualification.
To contrast this with "standard design", you will essentially define (and justify) the baseline, and if you quantify this based on # of established species (or similar), you can simply show that the design case is significantly improved over your self-defined standard design.
Now you just need a really good narrative, and an open minded cert reviewer. Good Luck!
After a design or construction submittal review, if one (or more) of the ID credits is not accepted, may it be replaced with a different ID attempt on the re-submittal?
LEED AP BD+C
Swap away. I always like to have a couple of extra ID ideas in case something gets rejected. It can be easier to document a new credit instead of massaging a submitted credit that got shut down. Swapping out between design and construction reviews is not a problem. If you have a final construction review and still need that ID point, you'll have to appeal to get them to consider the new ID credit. I'm sure someone outlines that in this forum.
I've reviewed all the ID points for NC that I can find here and in the ID Catalogue and haven't found any reference to achieving an ID point for panelized or modular construction. It would provide multiple energy and waste reduction benefits, but these are either included in other LEED credits or expressing excluded, as relates to MRc2. However, the materials efficiency aspect is not covered in the main credit set, and in LEED Homes there is a credit for Framing Efficiency including a path for modular components. For mixed-use projects using LEED NC has anyone been successful in achieving a related ID point? If so, details appreciated...
Did you consider MRpc63 (Pilot credit for Whole Building LCA)? I expect that this would be rather time intensive to document, and I can't say if any of the whole building LCA software knows how to address modular construction, although it does seem like it might offer a plausible way forward if your client is especially motivated to be recognized for the modular approach. Since this credit (or pilot credit for LEED 2009) is specific to the structure and enclosure, it seems like a good match for this type of strategy.
We achieved an Innovation Credit (under v2.2, mind you) for demonstrating the embodied energy1. Embodied energy is the energy used during the entire life cycle of a product, including its manufacture, transportation, and disposal, as well as the inherent energy captured within the product itself.
2. The energy expended in the process of creating a product, often including the fuel value of its constituent parts as well as transportation to its point of use. savings realized by using brick instead of pre-cast, on a project. I could dig up more details, if you are interested.
LEED AP BD+C, Editorial Director – LEEDuser
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.