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.
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.
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.
The Innovation Catalog shows two precedents of Exterior Envelope Commissioning, one approved and one denied. I cannot see any distinguishing characteristic that would show why one met it and the other did not.
We're considering commissioning the exterior per the language in LEED v4 Commissioning prerequisite:
Requirements for exterior enclosures are limited to inclusion in the owner’s project requirements (OPROwner's project requirements (OPR) is a written document that details the ideas, concepts, and criteria that are determined by the owner to be important to the success of the project.) and basis of design (BODBasis of design (BOD) includes design information necessary to accomplish the owner's project requirements, including system descriptions, indoor environmental quality criteria, design assumptions, and references to applicable codes, standards, regulations, and guidelines.), as well as the review of the OPR, BOD and project design. NIBS Guideline 3-2006 for Exterior Enclosures provides additional guidance.
Does anyone have experience with this approach and getting it approved?
While I have no direct experience with this, I would not think that meeting a future standard prerequisite would gain an ID credit. I would think the v4 Enhanced Commissioning language for envelope commissioning would be an acceptable guide. We have several projects where the ECx is a subcontractor to our firm doing the Cx, but they are still in construction, so we do not had direct experience getting the ID credit 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. of EAc3 under v2009. However, these projects are getting plenty of ID and EA points, and are really doing the work based on prior problems, and getting a point is just a bonus for them.
As you may know (and if others have read any of my comments on the v4 section), I am a bit critical of USGBC on the v4 language and changes to Fundamental and Enhanced commissioning. We are confident that our partners doing the ECx are doing it in very rigorous manner so we see no issues in gaining GBCI acceptance once we get to submittal.
Scott: I was under the impression that the envelope commissioning was removed from the latest drafts of V4. Correct me if I am wrong here.
Eric: We recently achieved the building envelope commissioning ID credit on a project using the criteria in ID catalog:
Building ShellThe exterior walls, roof, and lowest floor of a building, which serve to separate and protect the interior from the elements (precipitation, sunlight, wind, temperature variations). commissioning shall incorporate building envelope review during design. Attention will be paid to Vapor Barrier, Wind Barrier, Thermal Performance, Building positive pressure, Air Leakage, Exhaust Re-Entrainment Reviews during design. 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. will develop construction checklists for the QC to use during construction to verify these systems are
being properly installed
a. Vapor Barrier
b. Wind Barrier
c. Thermal Performance
d. Positive Pressure
e. Air leakage
f. Exhaust Re-entrainment
Why would you look to a future, unballoted version of LEED for ECx when LEED HC has this credit approach outlined for v3?
That's a good point, I had forgotten about that.
Susan; because I did not think of that! Of course, that would be a much better option, and indeed the ECx is integrated into HC v2009 EAc3. A much better option, thank you.
Valerie; Because you asked, I did another check of the 6th Public Comment Draft, and envelope requirements are included in the EA Prerequisite for Fundamental Commissioning and Verification, and an option remains in EA Credit for Enhanced Commissioning (worth 2 points either in addition to the typical energy systems, or on its own). There are no numbers in the drafts at this point.
Note in this draft, the commissioning was not available to comment on, and only had minor changes in the 5th public comment version.
Hi Scott and Valerie,
I was also under the impression that 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. had been removed from the Prereq in v4, so your comment, Scott, was a surprise. I took a closer look at the Prereq language, and I see that it IS still in there, but not as an actual Cx requirement after construction. It says:
"Requirements for exterior enclosures are limited to inclusion in the owner’s project requirements (OPROwner's project requirements (OPR) is a written document that details the ideas, concepts, and criteria that are determined by the owner to be important to the success of the project.) and basis of design (BODBasis of design (BOD) includes design information necessary to accomplish the owner's project requirements, including system descriptions, indoor environmental quality criteria, design assumptions, and references to applicable codes, standards, regulations, and guidelines.), as well as the review of the OPR, BOD and project design."
So there is no requirement to do any actual post-construction inspection or testing of the envelope for the Prereq.
Nadav, that is how I read it. For fundamental, it is just in the design portion. But note that the review of the project design is part of this. I made comment after comment on this whenever I had a chance. I disagree with the inclusion of these in the fundamental, and wanted all of the ECx to be part of the Enhanced credit option.
I even got a personal response (does “squeaky” wheel come to mind). Here is the reply from Chrissy Macken.
They heard me, considered it, and did not agree.
Please do not take any of this wrong, as I am a huge promoter of ECx on projects, and often am able to get one of our partner firms to the table to sell their services. The lack of definition is worrying me in the Prereq and Enhanced portions.
I am working on a project where they completed an extensive acoustics study during DD. They implemented some of the measures, however they didn't want to spend the money to have acoustical performance measurements done.
Do you think that performing an acoustics study during DD can be a valid innovation point? The facility is a University Library.
Katie, I wouldn't rule it out, but I think you'd have better luck pursuing the LEED for Schools acoustics prerequisite and/or credit, as that provides an already-established path. It sounds like it may not fit with your project, however.
What about Pilot Credit 24, Acoustical Performance? We have not pursued this, but it is kind of aligned with the credit that will be coming in v4, and appears to be a design credit that may not require measurement.
Just an idea.
@Tristan, Thanks for the idea on LEED for Schools prereq. I'll pursue that route for now.
@Scott, I did look at Pilot Credit 24-- it is also performance driven (as it should be). Unfortunately, my client just doesn't want to spend the money on measuring acoustic performance. I appreciate the comment though!
I am working on a Commercial Interiors project.
There will be significant equipment and appliance re-use.
From what I understand, equipment and appliance re-use cannot factor into MRc3
I have done some searching on google and LEED User forum searching and from what I understand, projects re-using a lot of equipment and appliances (re-use from another project, same function in new project, tv's, dishwashers, ovens, refrigerators, etc.) have gone for an ID credit.
Is this the best/only route of action?
Thanks in advance
Could I apply for an ID credit for using a totally inorganic, crushed glass and absolute closed celled material from building envelope. This material safeguard the environment, from cradle to grave the do not contribute to environmental pollution versus other building envelope materials that contains adhesives, petroleum components that definitely affects the environment?
Probably not. In general, an ID point will not be awarded solely for use of a particular building material.
Ask yourself a few questions: Is there a quantifiable environmental benefit? Is it innovative? Is it addressed elsewhere in the LEED system? For example, if the material contains crushed glass then it has recycled content that will add value to MR4. So, if you are getting credit there it is very unlikely you have an additional case for an ID point.
My only other suggestion would be to investigate the Pilot Credits. There are some that address life cycle assessment or chemical inputs. However, these are going to more comprehensive in scope.
One of the components of an Educational Program ID credit is a case study. I've searched and searched online but have not found an example of a case study that has met the requirements of this credit.
I'm really hoping to find out the level of detail that is expected in a case study. The project I am working on is a semi-classified facility and we are hoping to pursue this credit.
Would it be compliant to submit a case study that calls out the green features (ie, recycled content, energy/water efficient features, regional materials, etc) without specifically calling out the use of building other then office? The building owners are excited about the credit but equally reluctant to agree to chase it if they are required to share confidential information.
I am really hoping someone would be willing to share a LEED-accepted case study that I can use as an example to them of what level of detail a review team is expecting.
Eamon, some LEED projects have used the High-Performance Buildings Case Studies database.
While my case study examples are a bit old to share, i do have experience with doing these for confidential clients and having the effort credited. In those cases, the case studies were explicitly given to current employees and as part of any new employee orientation, but not made publically available. The USGBC has been good about respecting the confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure documents that have been expressed to them on these types of projects, so they will not publish those case studies, and have not used this against these projects when seeking compliance.
Thank you both for your quick feedback. You are a great resource!
I am curious about any precedence for a project getting Green Plus Certification and submitting this for an I&D credit. Is there a chicken-and-egg situation with this, wherein each pursuit wants the results from the other pursuit prior to evaluating? Thank you
I hadn't heard of Green Plus until now. It looks like a certification for businesses. How would this demonstrate a quantifiable, comprehensive environmental benefit for the LEED certified building?
I know that I am stating the obvious in saying this, and so apologize in advance for any offense, but not everything in the LEED Rating systems pertains directly to an environmental benefit of the certified building, right? The Green Plus program sets out a matrix of pursuits that it collectively describes as pertaining to "sustainability efforts across three categories: People, Planet and Performance......[earning] a score of at least 80%". This, to me, is an ideal pursuit for an Innovation & Design credit, presuming that many of the targets address 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. products, recycled paper products, Energy Star rated equipment, local sourcing, and so on and so on. Of course (and also obvious), I don't know the answer and that is why I went to this fantastic website to ask the question, in the hopes of finding someone who does! Best
I'm not sold yet on the Green Plus program, for a couple reasons. 1) If it's about the tenant and how awesome they are, then that is typically outside the scope of LEED. 2) If it's about O&M practices, then that is either a whole rating system that should be pursued separately from your D&C application, or it can be pursued with specific ID credits, such as 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..
As I said I just heard of this program now, so if another project has used for an ID credit, I wouldn't know. I am speaking just on my undersatnding of ID credits, not from knowing about the program.
Me as well (i.e. "not knowing the program"). Thanks as always
The "LEED Project Submittal Tips: New Construction 2009" document, link below, only lists EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credits as credits that can be pursued for innovation credit under the NC rating system. Does this mean that our project (NC 2009) can't pursue an innovation credit from the Neighborhood Development Rating system?
Janene, that is that not what that means. It just means that those EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credits are commonly pursued, and that GBCI has some tips for which ones are okay. You can use an ND credit, if it's appropriate.
Hi All! My inquiry is in regard to the possibility of achieving IOc1 -EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 points for "documenting occupants participation in a comprehensive employee wellness program that provides regular access to and participation in hralth and fitness amenities to enhance physical and mental health."(pg. 471 in Ref. Guide) My question is if anyone has attempted this before, what forms of documentation you provided that were accepted or denied. We are working with a university who has great state health care benefits offering many of the listed health programs at no cost, although none of the classes or facilities are held at this particular building site.
Any insight is appreciated!
Sara, I don't have experience with this option, and haven't seen it discussed before on LEEDuser. I would say, though, that the availability of the programs doesn't sound sufficient. An anonymous occupant survey to see how many people participant, along with regular communication to occupants encouraging use of the programs, would probaby go along way. Those strategies aren't so applicable for an NC project, though.
Tristan, great info. This is for an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. project and I agree that the participation and "education" factor will go along way.
Sara, I cannot provide any details, but I know that a NC v2.2 project got this kind of ID credit. It was for a large health insurance company headquarters that got LEED Platinum. We were the MEP engineers, so I really only know that they got the point, not how they did it or documented it.
My guess is as a insurance company, they had data and participation data to support just about anything.
For any of you familiar with the Submittal Exchange product, can anyone verify whether it is possible to pull down an IDc1 for this integrated submittal review process? Their documents promote it as such, but I am curious whether anyone has any experience with this yet?
Our firm works on a lot of projects that use Submittal Exchange with great results. We feel they are responsive and are working to maintain and improve the product. We are a consulting engineering and commissioning firm, so rarely are the ones holding the contract. Owners, architects, or contractors are the ones that instigate this form of document control.
I have not seen any of our projects pursue this type of ID credit, but if they are promoting this, I would sure feel comfortable asking them.
My office is working on a large Multi-building Mixed used NC LEED 2009 project in a urban area. The first floor will have retail space, potentially a few restaurants, and a small grocery store. We are considering a vegetable oil recycling / bio diesel program for the development and opening it up to the neighborhood. Is this worth going for an innovation credit?
Is there a similar program / credit out there I don't know about?
How do i find out if something like this has been done before?
thank you in advance for your help.
Emily, simply having a cool program in the facility won't be a valid path to an ID credit, in my opinion. But if you can frame it as an innovative program that is reducing the impact of the building and occupants, then you have a shot.
A couple more thought—consider whether this could be thought of as an Alternative Fueling Station under SSc4.3, in which case you have a clear path to earning credit. Or, work this into an overall waste reduction strategy and pursue EBOM MRc7 as an ID credit. You could look at LEED-ND GIBc16 on similar grounds, and that might be a better fit given your neighborhood approach.
You can try searching the 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. database or GBIG.org for other buildings doing a strategy like this.
Given the clear direction taken toward combustion in the renewables credits (no waste-to-energy considered), would this strategy even be considered as it promotes combustion - regardless whether it is far better then the alterntive?
Good point, but I think one could thread the needle. EAc2 doesn't recognize combustion of municipal solid waste, but it does recognize biofuels derived from organic waste. Seems to me that focusing on a single waste stream (vegetable oil), and processing that into biodiesel, which is recognized under SSc4.3, can work.
I would like to use the EB: MRc4-low mercury bulb credit for an ID credit in a LEED-CI project. What is the process in in submitting this as an ID credit. Do I need 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 or is this credit common enough for ID points?
I have submitted it for LEED NC multiple times. No need for 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. Letter from owner is required. a list of light fixtures installed and the mercury content. has to be under 80 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. hour on weighted average. I think you have to submit the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. paperwork for it also. Maybe an engineer can chime in here for more information.
Are projects still attempting this as an ID credit? I have heard that it is no longer being accepted by reviewers because they don't believe it is innovative. I have two projects which could take advantage of this as an ID credit and wanted to confirm that people are still having success with this approach before I start collecting the documentation. Thanks!
We have also been successful in getting this credit on several projects. Note that the description does not just focus on innovation, here is what it says: “The project team achieved significant, measurable environmental performance using a strategy not addressed in the LEED-NC v2009 Rating System.” So, using EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. MRc4 is certainly something “not addressed” in NC.
We submit what April indicated, a letter from the owner stating the policy on purchasing low mercury lamps (which we help with) showing the policy is in place. Then we submit a reference only version of the MRc4 from EBOM with the information filled out except the replacements are zero since it is a new building.
Thank you for your input, Scott!
Sustainable Purchasing - Reduced Mercury in Lamps strategy is allowed via 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. 5500 which requires that projects comply with an average mercury content limit of 80 picograms in order to achieve an ID point.
In several projects, we've been successful submitting a completed copy of the completed LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. MRc4 (which can be found in LEED Online under Sample Forms Download at the top), a copy of the lamp cut sheets, and a copy of the lamp invoices. Note that the MRc4 template says 90 picograms per lumen-hourPicograms per lumen-hour is a measure of the amount of mercury in a lamp per unit of light delivered over its useful life., but the limit for the ID credit is 80.
I am working on a LEED-NC project for a university where we will be implementing an energy dashboard website, similar to Lucid Technologies or QA Graphics. The energy dashboard website is one of two parts to satisfy IDc1: Green Education, the other part is a building tour for education outreach.
My question is if anyone has had experience with submitting an energy dashboard website to USGBC and what was included? We assume a description / intent, website outline and either screenshot stills or live URL will be required. We are in the early process of developing the website, so we do not have a live URL to give USGBC. We plan to submit screenshot stills, but it is unclear how many images would be necessary.
Regarding the dashboard website, is it enough to only upload the main splash page, secondary pages or the website in its entirety? Is it sufficient to provide the main splash page, a letter from the website company describing they are contracted with the owner to develop the website and include a dashboard from another project as an example?
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you!
With a detailed outline of the content and some screenshots, you should be fine. A copy of the contract would be helpful, too.
Thank you for the response.
With the premise an outline and letter regarding contract (or copy of) to be submitted to USGBC, I plan to submit still images of the main (splash) page, one secondary page illustrating the use of real-time data / graphs, and one "Green Features" item page illustrating overall navigation / menus of subsequent items within the "Green Features" section.
Do you think providing a URL of an operating energy dashboard from another project as an example from the dashboard developer would be a benefit or just confusing?
It shouldn't be confusing to give them the URL for a different project as long as you clarify that it's for a different project and that the dashboard content for the project you're submitting is still under development.
On page 615 of the LEED NC 2009 Reference Guide, it is noted that ID credits must be "significantly better than standard sustainable design practices." 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 139 (CaGBC) indicates that a Scent-Free Policy would be accepted as an ID credit for NC v.1 projects. Can anyone comment on whether CIR 139 could be applied to a NC 2009 project? I'd prefer not to have the Owner complete the work required if this is no longer considered an ID credit for 2009. My concern is that having a scent-free policy may be considered standard now?
I am not familiar with how CIRs work in CaGBC, but in the U.S., that CIR would probably be considered not applicable to NC 2009, because it hasn't been considered for it. You would have to get a CIR to ensure that it would be applicable.
I would be concerned that such a strategy would not be considered "comprehensive" in terms of the benchmarks needed for ID credits. Any ideas to extend it to a broader innovative 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. policy or occupant education would give it a better shot, in my view.
Ive never tried to achieve an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credit as an ID credit for NC BD+C. Has anyone has success achieving EBOM WEc1? How would a new construction project address the requirement - "The project must compile monthly and annual summaries of results for each subsystem metered."? Is this data compiled for a year then submitted to GBCI, or the owner states they simply will compile it? We are already putting in advanced water metering as a owner requirement. Thanks.
I have not pursued this particular EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credit for an NC ID credit, but I have achieved other EBOM credits in a similar situation.
In terms of your question on the summaries - Minimum Program Requirement #6 requires that energy + water data is released to the GBCI for 5 years, so yes, the data would be submitted through that requirement. That beings said - I think what they're trying to get at here is that there's no point in putting in fancy metering if no one is looking at the data. Data should be collected and put into reports for building maintenance staff / other relevant folks to review on a regular basis (monthly and annually) for the life of the building.
When submitting an EBOM credit as an NC ID credit, make sure to download the EBOM template from the LEED Online from the "Sample Forms Download" section. Fill it out as though you were documenting the credit for an EBOM project. You can make notes at the end of the template on what sections don't apply because it is an NC project (e.g. the Performance Period). Then upload it with all relevant documentation. (For some reason the reviewers require the uploading of the EBOM template now.)
Hope that helps!
Thanks Melissa, this was very helpful!
We are using NC 2009, and looking to document an innovation point following EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. MRc4: Mercury Reduction. Does anyone know how to gain access to the LEED form/spreadsheet to streamline our documentation?
You can go to this website (http://new.usgbc.org/sampleforms) scroll down and click "load more" until the forms for the Existing Buildings v2009 rating system are listed. Download the most current version of the MRc4 form.
you can also click the "smart filter" button on the left side of that page to search for a specific rating system, credit category, credit title and/or form version.
The "smart filter" button doesn't seem to work for me in Internet Explorer 9. When I view the website in Compatibility Mode the "smart filter" button completely disappears. It gives me the warning, "Please upgrade your browser. This site requires a newer version to work correctly." But then takes me to an Internet Explorer 8 download page. I'm not asking anyone on here to give me IT help, but more just pointing out that, although I really like USGBC's new website, I don't seem to have full functionality.
I believe you can also download an active sample form once you are inside LEED Online (v3). After you log in, look to the top right corner, and click on the "Sample Forms Download" link. From there you should be able to locate the EBO&M forms and find the most recent version.
LEEDuser also links directly to sample forms through our Doc Toolkits. For example for EBOM MRc4.
I was wondering if its possible to earn 2 ID credits using the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. Reduced Mercury Lamps credit for an NC project? Our team is pursuing the credit on an NC 2009 project and the project has satisfied 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. threshold. Any thoughts?
Chad, I don't know if this is written anywhere, but I very much doubt it. The ID points are "bonus" points, so getting a bonus on top of a bonus, seems like too much to me.
Anyone has a reference or sample of the educational building program plan?
and can anyone experienced through this credit advise about what is needed for its documentation? We will go for the LCDs (signage) and case study and the website. Thanks in advance
Diaa, there is discussion of the requirements for documenting an educational ID credit in LEEDuser's guidance, above. I do have a sample that I will post to the Doc Toolkit above, as well.
Tristan, did you post the Ed ID Sample to the Toolkit? I don't see one.
Has anyone heard of doing a Post-Occupancy Survey/Evaluation, in regards to IEQ, as an ID for LEED CS? We are brainstorming ID credit ideas and using IEQ c7.2 for NC (Thermal Comfort: Verification) as a benchmark came up as a possible option. We would welcome any and all thoughts on this! Thank you!
Since EQc7.2 is always made contingent on EQc7.1 – Thermal Comfort Design, then I do not think that GBCI would see this as a viable ID. You would need to install the HVAC systems as part of the C&S package, which is very rare. That is my opinion of course, but we have definitely had comments from GBCI saying that we had to prove EQc7.1 before EQc7.2 could be awarded.
Has anyone successfully submitted already reviewed (and anticipated) Design Credits that achieved 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. status during the Construction Review for an innovation point?
In our case we did not mark that we were going for the innovation point during design review, and would like to do so now. We are currently in Preliminary Clarification Phase, so we could either mark the innovation point option now, or wait until Construction Review. If we mark the innovation credit now, we will not have an additional opportunity to elaborate if there are further questions. However, again since these credits have already been reviewed and approved, one would imagine that submitting the innovation point during Construction Review would be a safe move, assuming this strategy is allowed. Thank you in advance for your help.
You can always submit an ID credit for review regardless of which phase it's in. With ID credits, you have four chances (in split submissions) to submit an ID credit. So in your case, you didn't submit the ID credit for review in the Design Preliminary Review - you can submit it in the Design Final Review and respond to clarifications in the Construction Preliminary Review. However, if it is still denied, you cannot get a third review for that same strategy in the Construction Final Review (each strategy only gets two reviews before you would have to appeal). BUT you can submit for a completely different strategy (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. or an innovative strategy) in the Construction Final Review - granted, you wouldn't get a second review since it's the last review phase, so you'd have to appeal if you want to respond to clarifications.
Just make sure you haven't already earned three ID credits for exemplary performance (that's the max for NCv2009).
Hope this answers your question!
Has anyone tried an ID point for NC, based on the Material-Efficient Framing credit in LEED for Homes?
Maybe I haven't looked in the right place but I have read many comments and haven't found clarity on what a proven strategy is for earning 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. ID credit in NC 2009.
For my project, we intend to comply with IEQp3 and IEQc3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 from EB&OM. Does anyone have a sense if this approach will pass muster?
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 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.