International Projects - alternative compliance path

Maria,
If you go to the USGBC site. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2346 it looks like CI is not included yet.
See below
Learn more about ACPs for specific rating systems:
New Construction
Schools
Existing Buildings: Operation & Maintenance
Core & Shell

Eric is right, but if the credit is very similar to the NC/CS credit and the standard approach doesn't work then I would encourage you to at least try it.

There doesn't seem to be too much international customization in the LEED 2012 documentation yet, but I saw a few things (particularly related to VOC testing) that could prove useful. Again, not guaranteed, but if you are following their rules and fulfilling the credit intent then you should have a strong case.

Thanks a lot!
I knew that CI was not included, but just in case someone had heard anything about ACPs for CI.
Thanks again!
María

Hi Susann,

Thanks for your comment. As Deon mentioned below, we are currently seeking feedback on the LEED 2009 ACPs for Projects Outside the U.S. via a quick feedback form on our website. It would be wonderful if you could also make your comments in the forms!

You can view the feedback forms on the LEED NC, CS, Schools & EB:O&M rating system pages through this link: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222 or through the LEED International Program page here: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2346.

Using the feedback forms allows us to more easily track user comments and suggestions, enabling us to integrate your feedback more efficiently. Thanks again!

Hello Eirini,

You are correct. All non-US projects registered under the LEED 2009 rating systems with ACPs for projects outside the US may use either the original credit requirements or the ACPs. Because ACPs are alternative compliance paths they are merely additional options for projects and not required for use. If the original credit language is more applicable a project may use that path.

Many thanks for your prompt reply Deon.

This approach will help us a lot for a project we have in Europe and struggling a bit with the floorscore....

Deon,
Welcome to the international market. It's great to hear there will be a feedback form for us to provide input on the ACP's. For the most part the items I have reviewed are a good step forward.

Thanks a lot for sharing the information.

Many users will love to here that they are being heard. I know Jean and I have had many headaches applying an US rating system to projects in another country.
I personally will be more than happy to share experiences, suggestions and improvement idea from past and future projects.
Please also feel free to ask us questions. Many user here are dealing with the LEED documentation of international project every day and know what will or will not help them.

Happy Friday everyone! As promised, we finally have feedback forms for the LEED 2009 ACPs for Projects Outside the U.S. available for you on the USGBC website. LEED is built on the input and feedback we receive from the green building community, and this dialogue allows LEED to remain flexible and responsive.

You can view the feedback forms on the LEED NC, CS, Schools & EB:O&M rating system pages through this link: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222 or through the LEED International Program page here: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2346. We hope to hear from you soon!

Alternative compliance paths are included for the following credits/prerequisites:
SS c4, SSc6,
WEc3, WEc4.1-4.2,
EAp2, EAc1, EAc6,
MRc1, MRc2.1, MRc2.2, MRc3, MRc4, MRc5,
IEQp1, IEQp2, IEQc1.2, IEQc1.3, IEQc1.4, IEQc1.5, IEQc2.3

Not yet, but they did say they are working on it and it is about time. These issues have been very time consuming and cost prohibitive for no good reason. It would be nice if the USGBC starts rethinking it's requirement for cooling in a building. If I even have an IT closet in the building or a big conference room with cooling I have to consider the whole building to be cooled even though it is not and never will be. There are a lot of things under EA P2, which I think need to be critical revisit with an international view of building practice.

i haven't seen this per se - where is this documented? would be very keen to see this, since this would potentially affect us as well (haven’t run the numbers yet).

my understanding so far has rather been that international projects are now ALLOWED to use Option 2 to demonstrate compliance, which may make it a whole lot easier for some projects, while maybe not for others? international projects have never been able to use the ES PM other than for benchmarking, providing a score rather than a certificate.

Jutta,
The documentation is constantly changing and conflicting, but the original ACP EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. documentation released around October 9th states the following:
CASE 1. Projects Eligible for Energy Star Rating-This CASE is not available to Projects outside the U.S.
CASE 2. Projects Not Eligible for Energy Star Rating OPTION 1-This CASE is not available to Projects outside the U.S.
CASE 2. Projects Not Eligible for Energy Star Rating OPTION 2-Note for Projects Outside the U.S. - Projects outside the U.S. can use Option 2 but are limited to Option 2B or 2C, as outlined in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance, 2009 Edition.
The original LEED EBOM manual states this:
"For building types covered by ENERGY STAR but located outside the United States, use Case 1 to obtain an ENERGY STAR rating. The Portfolio Manager tool provides a list of locations outside the United States, but it is not complete. If the location for an international project is not listed, consult ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendices B and D to determine a comparable US city."
The issue is that there is no national energy data available outside the US, like CBECSThe Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a national sample survey that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they include building types that might not traditionally be considered "commercial," such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. CBECS data is used in LEED energy credits.. See the excerpt from an EU energy research committee.
"Breakdown of Energy Consumption
Information on the average breakdown of total energy consumption for different end-uses in nonresidential buildings is not available for most countries or is limited for the other countries. In cases when information is available, most of the data refer to the last decade.
Breakdown of Energy Consumption in Different End-Use Buildings
Information on the average breakdown of total energy consumption for different end-uses in nonresidential buildings is not available for most countries or is limited for the other countries."

The problem with Options 2B and 2C is the following:
"Enter at least 3 consecutive years of historical energy use data into Portfolio Manager, in addition to the current year's data."
ACP Problems:
OPTION 1. Benchmark Against Comparable Typical Building CASE 1. National Energy Data Available - No Data available
OPTION 1. Benchmark Against Comparable Typical Building CASE 2. National Energy Data Not Available - Finding three typical, comparable buildings with permission to use their energy bills. Requires 12 months of data.
OPTION 2. Demonstrated Energy Efficiency Improvement-The building must have at least four consecutive years of site energy data.
The certification process for some buildings just jumped from 12 months to 48 months or longer for buildings that are a few years old but didn't LEED certify previously....

thanks for the posting and this doesn't sound very encouraging at all!

i hadn't seen these and hadn't actually delved into these, since from all i heard at toronto and from all i read in the documentation guidance and on the usgbc website is that following the ACP remains optional: we may either use the ACP or the original credit requirement. maybe a formal clarification from international@usgbc.org would help sort this out?

Jutta,
I plan on submitting a rather lengthy document to the USGBC once I review all of the conflicting documentation detailing my view on the impacts.
The current ACP document is totally different from the previous form. It would be nice if they would put version numbers on documents rather than October 2011.

Good news. Looks like it was just a mix up.
"Thanks for your question about EAp2 and EAc1 for EB projects outside of the U.S. The language stating that Case 1 was not available to projects outside of the U.S. was erroneously included in the Rating System with ACPs. The case IS available to projects outside of the U.S. and the box stating otherwise has been removed from the Rating System."

Thanks for posting that response, Eric. Also, thank you for noticing that the language is still included for EAc1. We will work to remove that language as soon as possible and update the rating system to reflect this.

Sean,
Thanks for the quick response.

Hi Reinhard,

It appears as though you are referring to the ACP Documentation Guidance Document. To be clear, this document is designed to assist project teams using ACPs to prove credit compliance in LEED Online. To view the ACPs themselves, please visit our website at www.usgbc.org/leed.

I hope this clears things up a bit!

Jean,

This is the opposite situation here in the US, the MR credits are fairly easy. How are these credits major headaches? Is it a lack of alignment with the CSI formats?

It starts with CSI categories being different from European categories, it goes on with contractors being unfamiliar with the process and definition of for instance post vs pre consumer recycled content and translation into English. For the regional materials, it's more so the level of detail for documentations, which makes projects shy away from it. Most projects have no problem using materials within 500 miles. The majority does that anyway.
Looking at LEED 2012 this isn't getting any easier.

However the costs are categorized for a building they still all have the same material elements. Carpet is carpet in Germany, the UK, or the US. Revising the material cost budget may be an additional step that seems unnecessary, but it doesn't seem as difficult as completing an energy model or convincing the project to go greener?

I agree, translating ASHRAE standards to other standards does seem more difficult. But the MR discussion reminds me of the early days of LEED (2001 - 2002) and calling every manufacturer, explaining LEED and asking questions. I know I wasn't the only one. But now we have manufacturers who understand the program and address it up front.

Here is a link to the MasterFormat sections names by Division. It is a long document and it is only in English but maybe it starts to help with the MR problem.
http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/MasterFormat/About-MF/n...

I disagree. Usually costing is done by a Qualified Quantity Surveyor. I'm not one of them, and the architectural firm doesn't have one that is familiar with the costing splits. Yes, a carpet remains a carpet, but into which category it falls is a problem. We in Europe simply have big problems with this. Architects working for the client often want as little to do with LEED as possible and are often downright unwilling to cooperate. If I, the LEED AP can't do it, it doesn't get done. That is the real life situation.

Jean,

I know a European QS firm who would be happy to provide you the costing service. :)

Could you post me a web-link please? I'll follow it up. Thanks.

Jean,

You can contact me through LEEDuser if you want and I'll get back to you.

Jean,
It seems like the USGBC has just provided a tool to help with the conversion process.
"Complete all your metric (SI) to imperial (IP) unit conversions for LEED documentation, with one consolidated tool." - http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220

Hi Jean,
I believe you stand correct: GBCI now accepts metric measures not only for the ACP but also for the drawings. I have inquired about this in an official e-mail.

Maria,
I will jump for joy when metric units are accepted! I do see that some of the ACP forms (7 out of 49 credits) will accept both units; however I don't see an explicit statement allowing this in the website documentation and the November 1, 2011 LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction Addenda, for example, still reference the following language "Units of Measurement Guidance
In order to facilitate certification review by U.S. based reviewers, it is necessary to submit pertinent aspects of review-related documentation in English and convert units to U.S. Standard (i.e. Imperial) units of measure, unless noted otherwise in the credit or prerequisite description. It is not necessary to translate every aspect of every construction document into English and imperial units, but only those necessary for evaluation of criteria. The project team should be prepared to provide additional translation(s) if requested by the reviewer in their preliminary review comments." from 11/3/2010. Perhaps it's just a case of not coordinating the official documents? Please share any official response you receive.
By the way did you see the requirements for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. energy benchmarking? It might be a really big problem for European projects....

Additional information
I was re-reading the LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance  With Alternative Compliance Paths For Projects Outside the U.S. and on page iii is the following:
"Please note that LEED Online is written in English and that all metrics used within LEED online are Imperial (IP) units. All projects are required to submit documentation in English, using Imperial units., Project teams that typically work in Metric (SI) units should use the ACP Conversion Tool to convert measurements to Imperial units."
Dear USGBC / GBCI please clarify the metric-imperial issue?

Hi Eric, here is the response I got on the question regarding drawings and metric system:
"To answer your question, projects can now submit their documentation in Metric units. We understand that most projects outside of the U.S. use Metric, so we want to be as accommodating as possible to these project teams. Please note that we have not been able to convert all of our LEED Online forms to Metric, therefore, we have created a conversion tool that should help teams using Metric convert any measurements to Imperial units for use in the forms."
I believe we can submit the drawings with metric, but still convert the forms and calculations to imperial.

One of my colleagues recently asked USGBC International the following question:

Considering the fact that the update introduces metric conversions for all current LEED measurements, is it already acceptable by reviewers to provide project documentation and drawings in metric system? Or it is still a subject to discussion with the respective reviewing team.

The response was as follows:

To answer your question, projects can now submit their documentation in Metric units. We understand that most projects outside of the U.S. use Metric, so we want to be as accommodating as possible to these project teams. Please note that we have not been able to convert all of our LEED Online forms to Metric, therefore, we have created a conversion tool that should help teams using Metric convert any measurements to Imperial units for use in the forms.

We interpret this to mean that the LEED On-line forms still need to be filled out with imperial measures but that metric drawings are now accepted.

Maria and Michael,
I sent an e-mail to Deon and Sean and hopefully they will clarify the issue for us. I asked them to post the answer back here.

Eric, it was exactly Sean who replied to our inquiry. Will be interesting to hear their comment on the rest of the documentation and submittals. Thanks!

Hi everyone,

Maria is correct, projects are now allowed to submit supporting documentation in Metric units (plans, specifications, etc.). As mentioned previously, we have not been able to convert all of our LEED Online forms to Metric, therefore, we have created a conversion tool that should help teams using Metric convert any measurements to Imperial units for use in the forms.

We will be sure to clear up any confusing language in the rating systems.

Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification. It's a great step forward to be able to submit the supporting documents in metric units!

At one stage we had to regenerate the reports - one in metric, and one in imperial. We then submitted the two Trane Trace reports.

If the LEED system did the conversion in the background back to imperial for the US-based invigilators, then no one would be disadvantaged.

Agreed. A lot of projects have way more outside air than required by ASHRAE 62.1, a lot of dedicated outside air systems and 100% OA but the toilet exhaust is less.

I appreciate the new possibilities given by the ACP for projects outside the U.S. Is it possible to use the EN 15251 and EN 13779 for the IEQ category and ASHRAE for EAp2 and c1? Then two regulations will be applied to one project. What is your opinion?

Hello Bernadette, thank you for your question and your thoughts on the ACPs. The LEED 2009 ACPs may be used individually by project teams as they are needed. This means that projects may use the ACP for IEQp1 but not for EAp2 if teams wish. Therefore, the CEN Standard EN 15251 & EN 13779 may be used for the related credits in IEQ and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 may be used for the related credits in EA.

Dear Deon,
Is it possible to opt for ACP after preliminary design review feedback has been received. The ACP for int. project were issued after we have submitted for design review.
Any feedback is welcome. Thanks in advance!

Hello Maria, and thank you for your question. Project teams are able to apply the LEED 2009 ACPs to their project even after their design review is complete. However, each credit will still only be given two rounds of review (preliminary and final) before an appeal is required. This means if a credit was reviewed without using the ACP during the preliminary design review phase and the ACP strategy was applied during the final design review phase the ACP strategy will only be reviewed once before an appeal is required.

We hope this resolves your issue. In the future please feel free to submit your questions on the certification and review process by going directly to http://www.gbci.org/contactus. This will allow you to submit your project information so GBCI can review your project when answering your inquiry and giving you a more detailed answer.