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 GBCI 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.
I have done a lot of research and can not find any cases of getting an ID credit for using a saltwater pool. Does anyone know of any?
If not do you think it would be an excepted strategy?
I have not heard of a case of this being tried or accepted as an ID credit either but I would think you could build a case based on not using a chlorine or bromine based system. You could cite potential hazards with those (in use, and possibly in manufacturing) and how salt water based systems are better for individuals and the environment.
I wouldn't 100% count on it. It seems somewhat business as usual. Additionally, the reference guide states that "the process or specification must be comprehensive. [...] measures that address a limited portion of a project or are not comprehensive in other ways are not eligible." I'd talk up the quantitative environmental benefits and don't get discouraged if you get questioned in your preliminary review comments you may be able to persuade them with your final review response.
The reference guide also says " the level of effort involved in achieving an ID credit should be extraordinary." "Installing a single green product or addressing a single aspect of a sustainability issue is not a sufficient level of effort."
Are you already going for the Sustainable Education ID point? it's more tried and true...
Strikes me as a single technology, not comprehensive in scope—so not going to meet the threshold for this credit. Now, if it were part of a green housekeeping program reducing chemical use throughout the facility...
Thanks all for the feedback!
Yes, I get that its a single technology. It is replacing a standard practice (chlorinated pool) that requires ongoing chemicals that are harmful for people and the environment. So it does have much more of an ongoing impact then a "single technology" would.
We will probably go for a more slam dunk ID though.
I wouldn't necesarily give up on this. We have gone for and been awarded single-technology ID credits before - like low-mercury lighting - on LEED-NC projects. But as others haave suggested this may not be a slam-dunk. Still, unless you are maxed out on other ID credits I would suggest you go for it. Your approach seems innovative to the point not a technology so widely adopted - yet, and is environmentally and 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. positive, and is worthy of much broader support.
This is a situation where there are great advantages to submitting for a split review. We've often "tested" innovation credits during design review and then have had a follow up opportunity (with plenty of time to plan and work on it) at construction credit review time. Single technologies or strategies that are not "comprehensive" seem to be denied on a regular basis. There are additional strategies that could be included in pool design (circulation system, filtering for reuse, etc.) construction, maintenance, and operations to make this a "green pool" or as Tristan commented, make the pool chemicals part of green housekeeping.
I totally agree with the approach Kath suggested as that will give you the best chance to get the Innovation Credit accepted.
Kath - it is great to hear from you!
We attempted an Innovation in design credit for our project. The strategy for this was reusing existing foundation elements in the support of a new 18 story high rise building. The existing foundation elements (piers, etc) were placed and then the project permit was revoked and the project abandoned. The foundation elements sat exposed to weather for 9 years before our new project came along.
This credit was denied in its first review during the PreCertificaton Final Review. The reviewer states that the strategy aids in the achievement of MRc1.1 Building Reuse. We did not see this as a viable option given that there never was a finished building in place to reuse.
Will this get reviewed again in the Design/Construction Review?
Can I contact by email to further clarify our intent/strategy?
Do I have to pay / enter the Appeal process since it was Denied?
I'm afraid you are most likely out of luck on this approach, as central to Path 1 (Innovation in Design) eligibility is that the strategy not be addressed by any other LEED credits. Since the reviewer has confirmed that this strategy is already addressed within an existing credit (even if it isn't feasible to achieve in full), this strategy is essentially ineligible.
Tracy, have you applied this material to MRc2? That's your fallback for material like this that doesn't fit with MRc1. We talk about that on our guidance for those pages.
Thank you. I think this will be my fallback plan. I did not believe MRc1 worked because the strategy is to reuse a 'previously occupied building'. In this case there never was a building.
For MRc1 - we are already attempting this credit. We may be able to get an 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. credit as well. Thanks for your help.
What do I have to do to apply for the Educational Program credit?
Since I have not seen it here:
I am afraid that I will have to submit a 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. Is that right?
It (kind of) depends on the Rating System.
For v3 (2009) and previous versions, 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 #3115 applies, and to paraphrase, you need 2 actively instructional elements (signage, case study, and/or tours).
I don't know if this CIR will be deemed eligible for use on v4 projects at some point, although as of right now, the CIR is not expressly allowed for v4. That said, a case could still be made to use it, and as it still can be reasonably applied to LEED v4 projects (and doesn't overlap with any of the new v4 credits), I expect that this would likely be accepted.
As a tip, this type of information can be found here: http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations
An educational program is a pretty standard IDc1 appoach. There is guidance about what you need to do, both in our guidance above, and in the LEED Reference Guide.
Are there known elements/requirements to include in a "case study" as one of the strategies towards the Green Education ID credit? Is there an outline somewhere that can be followed? My client is fairly private, but perhaps if they knew the requirements of a case study, they might feel as though they could accomplish them without divulging personal information that they would rather keep private.
Crista, one resource I point people to is the case studies database on BuildingGreen.com. A number of these have been used to earn LEED credit, and there is a variety of project types and owners.
I am working on a NCv2009 project, and it is considering using MRp2 Solid Waste Management Policy as an Innovation Credit. I have a two part question.
As this is a prerequisite with related credits, does LEED require the NC innovation credit involve both creating the policy and then following the guidelines of each related credit? Almost making the prerequisite and three associated credits a "package" of sorts, similar to how LEED treats IEQp3/c1 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.? This would make the minimum percentages from MRc7, MRc8 and MRc9 all applicable, right?
Assuming the above is true, when looking at MRc7 On-going Consumables, has anyone had any luck using waste to energy count in the required percentage of reused, recycled or composted waste stream? The new building I am working on sits on a campus. The current buildings compact their waste, which is then burned by the local district energy provider. This building will likely do the same, and I am curious if this will help their percentages at all for this credit.
Thanks for your help!
Sara, sorry for the slow response but I think these questions would be better posted on those specific EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. forums.
I'm working on a project in which we have already been awarded (2) points for 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. + another (2) points for Innovation in Design (for a green housekeeping plan as well as a radon mitigation system) + (1) point for having a LEED AP on the team and finally (1) point for the school as a teaching tool. That totals (6) points in the Innovation in Design category. Are we maxed out with these (6) points or can we attempt others even though we have already submitted the Construction Final Application?
Congrats, you are maxed out, my friend!
Tristan - Thanks for the info.
We are working with some great clients in a city anxious to test-drive a zero-waste program. We have 2 CI-2009 projects with these clients. In terms of how to optimize all that good will, I was wondering if it would be acceptable to go for 2 ID credits in the garbage zone: composting of food waste and recycling of e-waste, on each project.
Anxious for feedback.
Seems as though a lot of people have similar questions about "borrowing credits" from other rating systems. I think that I've tracked down that line of logic:
You can use v4 of this credit in a 2009 project, and v4 allows you to borrow credits from other systems (pg. 781 of current BD+C v4 guide).
That said, this is where the logic sort of ends for me, since the text in the v4 guide reads: "Points can also be earned by achieving selected credits from other LEED rating systems." The implication here is that there is an approved list (i.e. "selected credits") that exists somewhere, but I can't find any evidence of such a list's existence. Is there an approved credit-from-another-rating-system list somewhere out there, or will they be approved strictly on a project-by-project basis?
Thanks in advance!
If you go into the LEED Credit Library at USGBC.org, at the left side list - very bottom there is an Innovation Catalog. As well at the bottom of each credit after you open them up it notes, in a gray box, if you can use the v4 version of that credit in a v2009 project. Go to SSc8 fro example - there is a link to an article about using v4 credits in a v2009 project - it gives you the complete list - or link below.
Thank you so much for your reply, that's exactly what I was looking for. I've spent the last 5 years or so trying to ignore USGBC's website since it wasn't very well designed, but I suppose I should start keeping an eye on it!
Under the category of borrowing credits from other rating systems, I am looking at the potential to use the "Joint Use of Facilities" credit from Schools as an ID credit for NC.
The project is a higher ed building designed to support and incubate entrepreneurial partnerships with business, and host programs for outside organizations and the community.
Does anyone have experience using SSc10 as an ID credit or opinions on whether this approach seems reasonable for this project?
Has anyone been able to use EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. EAc2.3 (On-going Commissioning) as an ID point for a LEED-CI project? I have a client ready to do it but before we pay the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. I want to make sure we can get it.
Sorry, I have not seen this used before. You could ask a 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 or proceed but have something else as backup (or use this as backup to something else).
Scott: Thanks for the quick response. Generally it is a rule of thumb that almost any EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credit can be brought over for an ID point, but I would like to see if anyone has actually done it for this particular case. I may put in a 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, but not sure if we have the time. I just wanted to pad my point buffer a little.
I’m currently pursuing the point given for the Innovation and Design (green educational program). The signage has already been installed in the building, but we’re missing another way to compliment this action. The leaders proposed to create a local network with information about the LEED advantages, but I’m worried that this Intranet (local network) will not be accepted given the fact that it’s only for the people who works inside this company, and the general public will not be aware of the information. What is your opinion and experience about this situation?
Also about the signage and at the moment you’re going to register the credit on LEED online, do you think it’s recommended for the project to include pictures that display the location of these signboards, or it’s ok to just send the design of the signboards?
Bernardo - The Intranet communication will not be enough to provide the active education required. If you can also make the case study information available to the public, you're more likely to meet the requirements. For the signage - you can include a floor plan with the location of the signs and images, text, or illustrations about the information on the signs.
The nature of my clients building is private. They would be unwilling to host tours from the public or include too much information on a public website. They have suggested the following measures that they could take towards educating occupants and minimally the public. Would this satisfy the credit intent?
• We will place an article on the Internal website which describes the LEED project, the reasons for doing it and the impact it will have.
• We will do a Town Hall meeting for all staff with visuals and renderings to show the project in its entirety.
• We will post another article on the external website with narrative and description highlighting the LEED project.
• We will distribute an internal newsletter which provides information on the project to all of the staff.
• We will do an internal Lunch and Learn on LEED projects at the FRBNY.
Not sure, as most of the projects I have been involved with had a high degree of interaction with the public. Occupants and users are still a good audience if in numbers sufficient to warrant the education. Perhaps broadening the education to the foundational need for LEED as a measure and how aspects of the project can be implemented in the occupants home, neighborhood, or community. I would recommend proceeding, putting your best case forward, but have a backup plan if they do not accept it.
One of the keys to successfully earning the Green Education credit is that whatever is proposed be "interactive." Posting articles does not engage the reader in "active" learning. That's the challenge we have had in six projects that all were secured buildings with no public access. One activity that might work for you is to have employees commit to volunteering within the community to explain lessons learned on the project, to go to schools and work with students on sustainability projects, and even to introduce LEED for other projects. Sign up/pledge sheets as part of the submittal would certainly help.
Does anyone have experience with pursuing a closed pilot credit as an ID credit? We had intended to register for a pilot credit, but it was closed to new registrants before we were able to register. We would still like to pursue the credit, however.
Any input you have would be greatly appreciated.
Kate, which credit is it? Usually they are closed for a reason -- they are updated with a new version, or incorporated into LEED v4, so you could potentially use the LEED v4 version.
Thanks, Tristan. That's a good call - it turns out it was included in LEED v4. The pilot credit was #21, which is now in the EQ section.
The reason we wanted to pursue it was for low emitting furniture. I'm now wondering if it might be possible to pursue IEQc4.5 (low emitting furnishings), which is only available for schools.
Our office is currently designing two LEED laboratory building. Both owners are interested in implementing a Green Labs program. Anyone have any information on if / how a program like this can be accepted as an Innovation credit?
Kelly, can you say more about what the green labs program entails and how it goes above and/or complements what LEED covers?
I could see potential for this, but need more specifics.
Kelly, we have been awarded innovation credits for projects using part of what would be in a Green Labs program on science and/or lab projects, especially when the strategies also relate to credits in other LEED systems - such as as a 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. We have considered other aspects of Green Labs as innovation credits but have not yet attempted them. You would have more opportunity for multiple innovation credits applying Green Labs components as innovation credits one at a time (as long as they seem to have sufficient merit) rather than the entire Green Labs system as an innovation. The process to receive an innovation credit for Green Labs or components of Green Labs would be similar to receiving credit for other innovations.
Both of these owners currently have no green lab program, so we are helping to find examples or predefined programs. The goals of the programs would primarily would be raising energy awareness and operational conservation within the labs as the equipment in these labs use a large amount of energy. The programs would also focus on recycling and green chemical usage.
One project is also pursuing an ID credit for 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. by utilizing the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. prereq and IEQc3.1Green Cleaning Program.
I was looking to see if there are any known and fairly transparent, and detailed case studies to reference. Or if Labs21 had guidelines to use as a framework that had been acceptable to LEED.
Thanks for your assistance!
We have received Innovation Credits several times based on a comprehensive 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. Following the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. prereq and IEQc3.1 are a solid path! We have also received ID credits by by pursuing an educational program. Your "energy awareness" component could be part of an educational program (think signage, brochures and/or web info, public and student tours, etc). I would think you may also find a way to qualify for another with a good "green chemical" program. I am not aware of specific case studies. You could check the ID library and as you suggested Labs21.
Use of the DOE/EPA Labs21 Environmental Performance Criteria (EPC) was an innovation credit in earlier versions of LEED. This was due to outstanding work of the then-LEED for Labs committee which evolved into LEED-Application Guide for Laboratories (LEED-AGL). The lab market sector was never seen as a large enough industry to garner scarce LEED resources at a time when warehouses, distribution centers, data centers and the like were rapidly being developed and needed attention and LEED guidance. The AGL was never released for public usePublic or public use applies to all buildings, structures, or uses that are not defined as private or private use..
That being said, the EPC is posted on the Labs21 website and still has terrific best management practices documented for lab designers. Might be useful to generate "innovation" credits in current and future versions of LEED.
Kath (or anyone else with first hand experience) -
I am looking at the EPC and see that it is made up of credits. Any past experience or hunches on if meeting only one credit from the EPC would gain a LEED ID credit? Or would we need to achieve more than one - to demonstrate a holistic program.
Our experience has been that the EPC was used as a design guide and complete program. Using one EPC credit could be submitted as a conventional Innovation point, depending, of course, on whether it is an issue not already covered in a LEED credit. Over the course of a decade, the USGBC committee working on "LEED for Labs" found that all but four of the draft "LEED-AGL" prerequisites and credits are now covered in LEED 2009, proving LEED has evolved and does address even some specialized building types, like labs. We have had success using Commissioning of Fume Hoods to ASHRAE 110 standards (as installed) as an innovation credit. Note: it had to be ALL fume hoods in project.
Is it published anywhere or do you know which are the four credits? Thanks - I'm just trying to get to that info if it is available without having to do the comparison myself.
Good tip about the Commissioning of Fume Hoods.
A project team earns an Innovation in Design point for an innovative strategy on a previous project. The project team would like to submit the same innovative strategy for an ID point on a current project. Which of the following statements is true? (Choose 2)
The project team must submit a 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 to see if the ID point will be achieved
Although a precedent was set by the previous project, the current project will not necessarily achieve the ID point
The current project will not achieve the ID point for using the same innovative strategy, because it is no longer innovative
The precedent set by the previous project means that the current project will achieve the ID point
The project team must structure the innovative strategy to be appropriate for the current project's context in order to achieve the ID point
Which you do think it is? (Help us help you!)
Also, reading the guidance on LEEDuser above will be invaluable.
I think the answers are :
I am a bit confused by the 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 as I have read ID points do need to go through a CIR process?
Innovative strategies under the Innovation in Design category can be achieved by a new construction office building by pursuing all of the following EXCEPT: (Choose 1)
A. Meeting the requirements of an applicable credit in the LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. rating system
B. Developing an innovative strategy that goes above and beyond the intent of an existing credit
C. Meeting the requirements of an applicable credit in the LEED for Schools rating system
D. Evaluating a substantial quantity of products or materials being used (or being considered for use in the building) on the basis of an ISO 14040 life-cycle assessment1. Life-cycle assessment is an analysis of the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service.
2. The practice of quantifying and characterizing all the resource and pollution flows associated with a process or product, for the purpose of documenting its environmental impact. It is defined by the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) as "a compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life-cycle."
E. Creating an innovative strategy that is not addressed by existing LEED credits, and can demonstrate quantitative performance improvements for environmental benefit
I was told the answer is (B) but surely that is an error? Also, how are choices A and C true?
Choices A and C would be true because you are allowed to 'borrow' credits from other rating systems to pursue Innovation points.
Choice B would be the most correct answer because you generally cannot pursue an ID credit for any strategy that is already addressed by base credits in the rating system.
That said, I call this the "most" correct answer because I do see it as slightly confusing. In many cases you can go 'above and beyond' the intent of a credit and qualify for an ID credit via 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....a path that is not included in the answers provided.
Hi, our project is using 100% recycled water for cooling tower. Is this eligible for an ID credit? If so, can we submit the credit at construction review stage since we've already submitted for design review? Thank you.
No I do not think so, as there are other credits in the Pilot Credit library that could apply, and this very topic is a feature of v4. I recommend taking a look at PC17 and PC18 as options to gain a credit for your system. We too have been using more condensate from cooling coils for make up to cooling towers along with good chemical monitoring and treatment.
The project submittal tips document on www.gbci.org says you can pursue LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. WEc4.1 Cooling Tower Water Management for an ID point on a LEED NC Project. One path for earning this credit requires that makeup water consist of at least 50% nonpotable waterNonpotable water: does not meet EPA's drinking water quality standards and is not approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction. Water that is unsafe or unpalatable to drink because it contains pollutants, contaminants, minerals, or infective agents.. There are some additional requirements here http://www.usgbc.org/node/1732143?return=/credits/existing-buildings/v20...
We've attempted to earn an innovation credit by citing the owner's initiative to recycle materials (batteries, motor oil, electronics, cooking oil, and other fluids from industrial equipment) beyond those required by MRp1. The review team has directed us to meet the requirements found in 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. 3920: 1. average recycling rate of 40%; 2. double MRp1 materials benchmark (by weight, volume, or recycling rate); and 3. don't include landscape/regulated waste in calculations.
The landscape and regulated waste requirement is straightforward, but I would like clarification on the other two. Is a waste audit needed to determine the recycling rate? Since it is very unlikely that the additional materials would double the MRp1 benchmark by volume or weight, doubling the recycling rate seems like the only viable option. Am I right to assume this essentially means that if 40% is the average recycling rate for the materials required by MRp1, then a rate of 80% of additional materials diverted from the waste stream would qualify for the credit?
Any suggestions are appreciated.
We're nearing the completion of our documentation for final construction review and would like to include this credit: anyone have some advice for us?
Eric, while that 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. is applicable to LEED 2009, I think it's a bit dated with respect to the model that it is providing. I would look at EBOM 2009 MRc7 as your model for compliance here and focus on meeting those requirements (doubling the base requirements of an EBOM credit is typically not required for an NC IDc1 approach).
Is this helpful?
Tristan, your comment is helpful: I can see why the requirements in EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 MRc7 are applicable and attainable, but I wonder whether the review team would find them acceptable since they directed us to such a specific 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.. Do you have any suggestions for how we might make a case for substituting one set of requirements for the other?
It is very common and pretty accepted to use an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credit for an NC ID credit. I don't think you need to make this case. I am a little surprised the review team pointed you to this older Interpretation when the EBOM path is more clear. You can even us the EBOM templates and forms!
For backup, see GBCI's submittal tips doc. Actually based on that I might amend my original comment and point you to EBOM MRp2.
Does anyone have any recent experience being awarded an ID point for using machine roomless elevators - submitting documentation from the manufacturer regarding process load/energy performance savings?
Pamela, any energy efficiency from the elevator would be captured in EAp2/EAc1, so there would not be a rationale for an ID credit.
I fully concur with the logic of your statement. Perhaps LEED needs to reach out to the elevator companies to advise them against false representation... Kone, Otis, Schindler all have statements on their websites suggesting an ID credit is possible for selecting MRL elevators (see Kone http://www.kone.us/sustainability/leed/). There are even continuing education articles published by Architectural Record suggesting MRL's are eligible for an ID credit (Next Generation Machine-Roomless Elevators - published May 2012 (http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=294&C=891&P=6).
You can achieve the ID credit but not for energy savings as noted by Tristan. You can however pursue the ID credit by pursuing the other environmental benefits such as no hydraulic fluid and savings on materials by having no machine room or elevator pit etc. Kone has been the only elevator vendor that has been able to provide the required documentation thus far.
Donald, have you seen this successfully done? I typically advise project teams away from ID approaches that rely on a single technology.
Yes, with the noted vendor. I understand your point on a single source and I agree, but I felt they needed to know what they are getting themselves into. We just haven't been able to get the required documentation from other vendors. We are actually in the midst of trying it with a different vendor now and will see what happens because we received some documentation but not all that we asked for; we had asked for the same information we received from the successful vendor. We are therefore going to provide a narrative culling information from various sources to hopefully fill in the gaps. If there were other options for this project I wouldn't pursue this ID credit.
Many thanks for all the commentary and feedback on the MRL / ID topic. We do have Kone MRL's on the project and are coordinating with their rep. One last question, to clarify whether you would submit as a design or construction ID credit, or if it matters. We're getting ready to submit LEED final design review credits, so I would prefer to have an opportunity to respond to comments by submitting it as a construction credit.
USGBC published a catalog of ID credits that have been pursued. It states the credit category/keywords, whether it was accepted or denied, and gives the basic parameters.
On page 26 of 30, towards the bottom of the page, is the "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." of an accepted ID credit.
My question is that this seems quite different than what everything else has led me to (btw, im working on a LEED-NC 2009 project. Other posts/resources have led me to believe we should follow EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credits for green cleaning.
This credit catalog, however, merely states "final cleanup" products and what standard they must conform to.
Additionally, this document makes reference to a two week flush out and replacement with MERVMinimum efficiency reporting value. 13 filters. As part of IEQc3.2, we are doing a flush out prior to occupancy - not at 2 weeks. Similarly, we are changing filters to MERV 13 just prior to flush out prior to occupancy - not at two weeks.
I suppose I need some guidance as to which path is more likely to get the green cleaning ID credit (EBOM, or what is listed in USGBC ID catalog).
anyone know/have any thoughts on this?
We always use LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. for this ID credit and have had great success. Provide the IEQp3 template along with the requested 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. You must also commit to using “sustainable” cleaning products as much as possible, products must meet the criteria set forth in IEQ Credit 3.3. As well commit to purchasing “green” cleaning equipment to meet the criteria set forth in IEQc3.4. Outline both in the Green Cleaning Policy for IEQp3.
thank you Donald. I think the only aspect of all the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. we are currently NOT doing is the assessment of janitorial service many months later. From what I gather, we do not need to be doing that.
LEED AP BD+C, Editorial Director – LEEDuser
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
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 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.