NC 2009 SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles

I have submitted sign mock ups when questioned on this credit. Other projects have been asked for photos. When the signs get installed make sure you take a photo to submit if questioned.

Hi Ilana,
The 20% discount on purchasing access to a parking spot sounds reasonable and in keeping with the credit intent & requirements.
Not sure how best to ensure the discount only applies to specific, eligible vehicles - perhaps the purchase & sale agreement needs to include this in the language. Are the "spaces" associated with a particular owner, no matter what they're driving, or a particular vehicle? How would valet staff normally know whether an arriving car or driver is has parking privileges? Could a specific number of spaces and lifts closest to the entry or drop-off point be clearly marked as reserved for low emitting vehicles? That might reduce the chances of gaming the system, and makes sense if they are combined with charging stations. If the garage is big enough, and the placement makes these spaces are quicker to access by the valets, they might provide a genuine benefit as "priority spaces." It's quite a rubik's cube given the cost of underground parking and the need to maximize the number of spaces within a limited area.

Craig, I think the better choice here is to exclude those spaces from your LEED boundary. That makes it more clear which spaces are associated with which building, and since those spaces do support the other building, I don't think you can be accused of gerrymandering (see MPR supplemental guidance doc, page 27).

Craig,
Those 180 spaces will need to be reserved for the sole use of your LEED building.
We've had a similar situation for a campus project. We could not achieve the credit as the lot is shared and could not be dedicated for the sole use of our building. The other option would have been to designate preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. spaces based on the FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. for all buildings served by the lot.

Yes, this would satisfy the requirements, as offering free parking for LE/FE vehicles surpasses the required 20% discount. Please see my response to the previous question below as well.

You may need a 2 year commitment to the valet parking.

If the hotel is charging for valet parking, offering a 20% discounted parking rate for LE/FE vehicles is an acceptable approach. Encouraging occupants to drive LE/FE vehicles through discounted parking rates meets the credit intent in this situation, rather than designating specific spaces. For documentation, you should assemble information pertaining to the discount program and how this discount will be communicated to occupants.

I have found the reviewers pretty consistent on site related credit requirements. Can you eliminate some parking and add to the open space or add a large rain garden?

On a LEED v2 project review I noticed that I could "unattempt" credits even after they had been approved in either the design or construction phase of submittals. This was evident when I received reviewer comments for the construction submittals. Can anyone weigh in on if this is possible in LEED v3?

There aren't any guidelines for this which allows us the freedom and curse of authorship. We should consider who the audience is and how to best achieve the intent of the credit and rating system.
If your audience is General Public, perhaps a more explanatory sign could be placed near a grouping of these spaces to supplement the LE/FEV or leaf, etc at the spot itself. The allowable vehicles for the credit is more broad than "hybrid and electric" but if you think that's the wording that will work for people, go with it. Since its more restrictive than the LEED credit I think you stand a great chance.
On a small university campus I called for a sign reading "Reserved ACEEE Green Score 40+". Maybe students and staff are more of a mind to look it up and see how their car, or prospective purchase ranks. I realize they won't do that before parking there, but these spots aren't policed anyway and for this client it at least raises awareness of a metric.
On a corporate project with a huge parking lot, we had over 40 spaces to mark. We used a broad green stripe where the spaces meet the parking lane and repeated the words "Low Emitting Fuel Efficient" about every three spaces within the green stripe. The lot was color coded this way for visitor parking (blue), compact parking (white), and LE/FEV (lime green). It works pretty well! It's big enough to read and recognize at a glance and for the quantity of spaces we had it was very economical.

You need to be very careful with sign language on this credit. We were denied this credit during design review from the GBCI recently for proposing Hybrids and Electric language which fits with the older population the project is serving. Their response stated 'The signage must indicate that the preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. is for low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehiclesFuel-efficient vehicles have achieved a minimum green score of 40 according to the annual vehicle-rating guide of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.'.' They went on to state that not all hybrids are low-emitting or fuel-efficient and vice versa. That said, I like the green parking stripe idea. I think it visually communicates the sign intent.

We too were denied this credit during the design review for having a sign that reads, "Hybrid and Low-Emitting VehiclesLow-emitting vehicles are classified as zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by the California Air Resources Board.." We received a similar comment saying that not all hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles are low-emitting or fuel efficient. The technical advice said we should provide signage saying "low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehiclesFuel-efficient vehicles have achieved a minimum green score of 40 according to the annual vehicle-rating guide of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. only". They put that in quotes. This phrase is extremely vague and the general public probably doesn't know its meaning, but apparently GBCI doesn't want us to try to clarify or make it more understandable.

I have had the same comment on a few projects so I would definately use the exact verbaige of "low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehiclesFuel-efficient vehicles have achieved a minimum green score of 40 according to the annual vehicle-rating guide of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. only". We had some latitude with the wording in v2.2 projects, but they have since tightened the requirements.

No. Ultimately, the total vehicle count is part of the zoning and proffer process for the building project, that you choose to build more handicap spaces than required isn't a pass on the credit limits. My approach would be to establish the 'code required' HC spaces and then discuss with the client the number of HC 'extra' spaces that they would like to be restricted to fuel efficient vehicles. In general, we don't mix our required HC spaces with the signed spaces for this credit.

Michael, there is no specific figure required by LEED.

Do you mean gasoline powered or natural gas powered? I'm not sure if golf carts are held to the same emissions reporting standards as cars, which may make it difficult for them to qualify. The ACEEE Green Score method is described at
http://www.greenercars.org/greenbook_method.htm
You'd probably have to contact the cart manufacturer to find out if they can be certified.

Cynthia, it is understood that the spaces are part of the design of the building and site, and are permanent. (However, there are no "LEED police" to check on allocation of these spaces in 1 or 3 or 20 years.)

Are you sure that you are using the correct option? It seems really odd to me that the college would provide vehicles for students to share. If the project is providing signs for these vehicles, then you want option 1. Here you need to know about total parking capacity. Read through the LEED NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Project (AGMBC) for direction.

Car sharingA system under which multiple households share a pool of automobiles, either through cooperative ownership or through some other mechanism., like Zipcar, makes sense to me. We have had similar issues with FTEs. I read the requirements that you need 1 car if you have less than 267 FTEs. You obviously do even if your residents were actually considered FTEs. The requirement would still only be 1.

The credit form won't document since you can't get the percentage, so I would note that in the special circumstances.

Thank you Michelle. Yes my total residents is 171 and it would only require 1 car to satisfy this credit. I've talked to some colleagues about the FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. dilemma and they also suggest using the special circumstances to note that. It just seems odd to me that the calculation of these forms aren't adjustable to whether the building has "residents" or "FTE", as there are many residential projects that would have a "0" FTE.

Agreed, Bonnie. The SS transportation credits are all geared to FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. occupants rather than users. One of my current projects is a Community Center with 3 FTEs and 300 visitors a day. Obviously the transients are more of an issue than the staff. Shades of LEED's beginnings with commercial office projects.

And by the way I forgot to add that even using the Special Circumstances the form is not going to document the point, so ultimately you won't be able to make the submittal without also sending a Feedback request on it anyway. So you might want to initiate that regardless. Good luck.

Michelle, how do I submit a feedback request? And do I do that now before I turn in the whole package for a prelim design credit review?

Hi Bonnie,
Feedback requests are accessed inside your LEED 2009 project. At the scorecard, you should see navigation at the very top of the screen in white. Your Account, Help, Feedback, etc. The feedback is intended for LEED 2009 online malfunction issues, since it's basically still in beta. This is the mechanism for credit forms that have problems or don't seem to do what they should.

If it were me, I would do it now because I don't think the credit form is going to document the point with the issue you have. If it won't document the point, you may or may not be able to make the submittal. I'm honestly not sure with this version. You may be okay since it's not a prerequisite issue. It may be that marking the credit complete is enough even with the error message you get. You'll know if there's a problem because you won't get the button you need to push for the submittal.

In any event, the Feedback request will alert them to the connection issue and might help others in future. Making a feedback request shouldn't impact your design submittal one way or the other.

You might want to contact the manufacturer of the charging station or the product spec sheets to find out the charging capacity per station and just enter that info into the template. The credit compliance is primarily based on the number of charging stations, not the exact charging capacity. I believe that info is requested just to demonstrate it's an adequate charger for a typical installation, and to identify the model, not to require any calculations on how much you're actually recharging per car.

Since 3% of your parking capacity is 2 stations, you'll probably need to provide two separate stations instead of the one you mention (I'm assuming one station connects to one car). It's likely the credit is assuming one car would be plugged into each station for the duration of a typical business day, but since that assumption is not stated or examined further I doubt it's all that important as long as you have two stations.

Thanks, David, for the response. I was kind of hoping that the fueling capacity question in the table on the credit form was actually meaningful. The bottom line percentage compliance calculation is a result of the capacity number you put in the table, not just the total spaces and the 3%.

The transportation credits are geared toward FTEs, and my facility is a YMCA with ony 3 FTEs and 300 daily visitors. The daily user visitors are actually a more significant transportation issue than the staff. I'm guessing there is a presumption that an FTE or a resident is using the charger, hence the 8 hr duration.

Realistically, it seems far more likely in our case that short term visitors to the Y and adjacent shopping center will be using it. I hate to tell the City they have to buy another charging station if that is not really required.

Michelle - I understand your question a little better now. My assumption is the "Vehicle Fueling Capacity per Station (8 hr day)" is filled out based on how many cars can be plugged into the station at a time and recharged over an 8 hour day. So your one station could possibly work if it has the ability to recharge 2 cars at time, since you need two charging "spots." Would be worth finding out the cost difference between a one-plugger and a two-plugger.

I smell 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 at least an inquiry to GBCI - since it's not entirely clear how that field of the table should be filled out given the range of different chargers available. For example, would one quick charger be enough to cover your needs since you have many short term visitors? How does the length of charge time affect how that form gets filled out?

If the project will only fund one charger that can charge one car at a time, you might consider Option 1, Preferred ParkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system.... or a CIR to see if you can combine one charger with preferred parking. Hope that helps!

I had the same questions raised by Michelle regarding how to determine the vehicle service capacity of an EV charging station over an 8-hour period. I submitted an inquiry to GBCI and received the following response. Inquiry and response are copied below , but unfortunately the issues haven't been clarified for me.

Does anyone have experience/information to share on these issues?

Inquiry:
Our NC Retail project plans for 352 parking spaces. According to the rating system, the requirement for this path is to ”install alternative-fuel refueling stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site.” According to the sample credit template, the calculation of this percentage accounts for the “capacity per station [number of vehicles serviced per day], based on an 8-hour day” in addition to the number of stations installed. Therefore, (if we understand correctly) the charging stations included on our project must be able to service at least 352 x 3% = 11 vehicles during an 8-hour period.

We are unclear on how to determine the appropriate ‘capacity per station’ value for an electric charging station. In addition to the station’s charging rate, other variables affect the number of vehicles that may be serviced per 8-hour day, including:

1. the battery capacities of the vehicles being charged (as examples, at 240V the Nissan Leaf requires ~7 hours to charge fully, while the Chevrolet Volt requires ~4 hours – according to vehicle manufacturers);

2. the charge levels of these vehicles prior to beginning the charging process (most vehicles will not arrive to the charging station with zero charge);

3. the length of time that users spend at the supermarket (customers who charge their electric vehicles while at the supermarket are likely to charge their vehicles only until they are finished shopping, rather than waiting until their vehicles have been completely charged).

To consider extreme cases, a level II charging station could service 8/7=1.14 fully depleted Nissan Leaf vehicles in 8 hours, so 11/1.14=10 charging stations would be required to achieve the minimum threshold of 11 vehicles. On the other hand, the same charging station could service (i.e. partially charge) electric vehicles for 8 customers who each shopped for an hour (and charged their electric vehicles while they shopped). In this scenario only 2 charging stations would be required to achieve the 11-vehicle threshold. Please advise on how we should determine the appropriate value for ‘capacity per station.’

Response:
We believe the intent of the credit expressed in the LEED Online form is how many cars could be fully charged in one 8 hour "shift". For example if a building was open 24 hours the charging station could not be considered as having a capacity of 3 based on there being 3, 8 hour shifts in a day.

Please note that in this forum we cannot approve project teams strategies, only offer guidance. We highly recommend that before you submit this credit for review you 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 describing your strategy to see if it would be accepted by the review team.

I don't believe there is any problem with exceeding the 3% but you won't earn 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. credit for the effort. That is a lot of fuel-filling stations and they are expensive here. Do you have a lot of alternative fuel vehicles coming to the building? Does your owner make these stations? What other green building features could you fund if you provided fewer stations? It would raise a flag with a reviewer because it seems excessive and you may need to explain the overabundance.

Thanks Susan,
the client is very ambitious and interested to invest in future concepts in a general way ... At the moment we are just checking the options in each direction. The alternative fuelling stations are just one aspect whole traffic concept.

We looked into that for our Germany projects. The problem is that you can't just use a European certificate or Germany certificate as a substitute. The German "Gruene Plakette" does consider emissions, but not fuel efficiency of life cycle costs of a vehicle. But those are all elements, which are included to determine the Green Score. We decided to leave it with the listed cars, even thought there are not many. But it's just not economical feasible to evaluate other vehicle's compliance with the green score and there is no comparable standard or certification in Germany. It will have to be a combination of several different certificates.

In our experience, the only way we have achieved this credit with mechanized parking structure is by providing discounted parking fees, if there is any. Otherwise, it is hard to make an argument with preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. as the customer does not get to choose where his/her will be parked or choose a parking spot.

Well it seems like we're not using them for the accomplishment of this credit,
Thanks anyway

Nilo, which option are you pursuing under SSc4.3? Patrons are not normally part of an FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. calc—which may simplify your work here.

We are using Option 3. Won't we need to calculate FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. for other credits?

My question is better put as "How do we calculate FTE for a 14 screen movie theater with 2500 seats? There are 20 full time employees." Thanks.

Nilo, I would put the question back to you—for which credits do you need to include movie patrons as FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories.? None that I can think of. They are treated differently.

Focus on the 20 staff as FTE. Sounds like 20 FTE.

Mike,
You might want to check the MPR Supplemental Guidance document page 14, second bullet that starts with "Facilities (including parking) outside the LEED Project boundary used for compliance with specific credits..." This would suggest your strategy may be ok, and if you search for inquiry number 2076 in the LEED Interpretations database, you'll find a similar question to yours that describes a way to meet the requirements using parking outside the LEED boundary.

No, I'm not—but I haven't looked for this extensively before.

We are working with a company that is providing the Ev stations through Federal Grant, and they are American Made http://chargepointamerica.com/

I have a contact person if want his info...

From what I've seen you have to provide two spaces in this case. Sorry!

Yes, Option 1 in the Bird's Eye View graphic allows for locating the preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. spaces close to the entries or providing discounted parking for LE/ FE vehicles.

Unfortunately I am not aware of any ways around this requirement. You might start with estimating employee parking first since you probably know your employee occupancy. The rest of the spaces could then be allocated to visitors.

Kelly, I would review the Minimum Program Requirements Supplemental Guidance document. I think it has something to say about this... you can find through Google.