Indianapolis High-Performance Building Cost Effectiveness Study by Daniel Overbey

INDIANAPOLIS HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY VERSION 1.00 AUGUST 1, 2019

Prepared by Ball State University 2000 West University Avenue Muncie, IN 47306 Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf 626 North Illinois Street Indianapolis, IN 46278 Turner Construction Company 733 South West Street #200 Indianapolis, IN 46225

COPYRIGHT Copyright ÂŠ 2019 by Daniel Overbey. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form on by an electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.

DISCLAIMER None of the parties involved in the funding or creation of this study assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use of or reliance on any information contained within this document. This study is based on a unique body of work during a specific period of time and the results may not be consistent in other applications.

TRADEMARK LEEDÂŽ is a registered trademark of the U.S. Green Building Council. All rights reserved by the U.S. Green Building Council. References to LEED and the cited Reference Guide are provided in this document for convenience. As of the time of this report, the quoted information regarding LEED is available for free in the public domain via usgbc.org/credits.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 8 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 10 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 12 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 14 LEED ASSESSEMENT: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 17 IPC1: INTEGRATIVE PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 18 LTC1: LEED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT LOCATION ........................................................ 21 LTC2: SENSITIVE LAND PROTECTION .................................................................................................. 22 LTC3: HIGH PRIORITY SITE .................................................................................................................... 24 LTC4: SURROUNDING DENSITY AND DIVERSE USES ........................................................................ 25 LTC5: ACCESS TO QUALITY TRANSIT ................................................................................................... 27 LTC6: BICYCLE FACILITIES ..................................................................................................................... 28 LTC7: REDUCED PARKING FOOTPRINT ............................................................................................... 30 LTC8: GREEN VEHICLES ......................................................................................................................... 32 SSP1: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY POLLUTION PREVENTION ............................................................ 33 SSC1: SITE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 34 SSC2: SITE DEVELOPMENT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PROTECT OR RESTORE HABITAT ..................................................... 35 SSC3: OPEN SPACE ................................................................................................................................ 37 SSC4: RAINWATER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................... 38 SSC5: HEAT ISLAND REDUCTION .......................................................................................................... 40 SSC6: LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION ................................................................................................. 42 WEP1: OUTDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION ........................................................................................ 46 WEP2: INDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION ............................................................................................ 49

WEP3: BUILDING-LEVEL METERING ..................................................................................................... 52 WEC1: OUTDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION ....................................................................................... 53 WEC2: INDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION ........................................................................................... 54 WEC3: COOLING TOWER WATER USE [ACP WEPC94: NO COOLING TOWER] ................................ 56 WEC4: WATER METERING ...................................................................................................................... 57 EAP1: FUNDAMENTAL COMMISSIONING AND VERIFICATION ........................................................... 58 EAP2: MINIMUM ENERGY PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................... 60 EAP3: BUILDING-LEVEL METERING ...................................................................................................... 61 EAP4: FUNDAMENTAL REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 62 EAC1: ENHANCED COMMISSIONING .................................................................................................... 63 EAC2: OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... 65 EAC3: ADVANCED ENERGY METERING ............................................................................................... 68 EAC4: DEMAND RESPONSE ................................................................................................................... 70 EAC5: RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 71 EAC6: ENHANCED REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 73 EAC7: GREEN POWER AND CARBON OFFSETS .................................................................................. 76 MRP1: STORAGE AND COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES .................................................................... 78 MRP2: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING .............................. 79 MRC1: BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT REDUCTION ........................................................................... 80 MRC2: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION – ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 84 MRC3: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION – SOURCING OF RAW MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................................................... 86 MRC4: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION – MATERIAL INGREDIENTS ........ 90 MRC6: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................. 93 EQP1: MINIMUM INDOOR AIR QUALITY PERFORMANCE ................................................................... 94 EQP2: ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE CONTROL ..................................................................... 96 EQC1: ENHANCED AIR QUALITY STRATEGIES .................................................................................... 97

EQC2: LOW-EMITTING MATERIALS ..................................................................................................... 100 EQC3: CONSTRUCTION INDOOR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................ 104 EQC4: INDOOR AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 105 EQC5: THERMAL COMFORT ................................................................................................................. 108 EQC6: INTERIOR LIGHTING .................................................................................................................. 110 EQC7: DAYLIGHT ................................................................................................................................... 112 EQC8: QUALITY VIEWS ......................................................................................................................... 114 EQC9: ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................... 115 IDC1: INNOVATION ................................................................................................................................ 118 IDC1.1: GREEN BUILDING EDUCATION ............................................................................................... 119 IDC1.2: OCCUPANT COMFORT SURVEY ............................................................................................. 121 IDC1.3: LEED O+M STARTER KIT ......................................................................................................... 122 IDC1.4: PURCHASING - LAMPS (O+M CREDIT, EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE) .............................. 123 IDC1.5: PILOT CREDIT EQPC44: ERGONOMICS APPROACH FOR COMPUTER USERS ................ 124 IDC2: LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL ........................................................................................ 126 RPC1: REGIONAL PRIORITY ................................................................................................................. 127 APPENDIX A: LEEDV4 BD+C SCORECARD SUMMARY...................................................................... 128 APPENDIX B: LEEDV4 PROJECT CHANGE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 130 APPENDIX C: LEED CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY ................................................................... 139 APPENDIX D: DETAILED LEED CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY ................................................. 141 APPENDIX E: LEED SOFT COST SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 147 APPENDIX F: HISTORIC COST SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 148 APPENDIX G: LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) BASELINE MODEL INPUTS .................................. 149 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 175

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Indianapolis High-Performance Building Cost Effectiveness (Indy-HPB) study has been made possible through the efforts of many professional contributors. The authors wish to thank the following companies for their support:

Principal Investigator Daniel Overbey, AIA, LEED Fellow

Other Contributors1 (alphabetical) Architectural Glass & Metal Company, Inc. (AGM)

Primary Contributors Primary Investigator and Primary Contributors are collectively referred to henceforth as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the authors.â&#x20AC;?

Carbon Solutions Group Fink Roberts & Petrie (FRP)

Ball State University Heapy Engineering Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Indy Steel Turner Construction Company Irving Materials, Inc. (IMI) Secondary Contributors (alphabetical)

Lithko Contracting, LLC RegenEn Solar

Applied Engineering Shiel Sexton Company JPS Consulting Engineers Schneider Electric Trane

Special Thanks (alphabetical by last name) Walter Grondzik Scott Levins Joshua March

Six subcontractors / suppliers provided input regarding drywall, insulation, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) systems, controls, curtainwall and sunshades, and Forest

Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood products. These companies are known to the research team but the company identifies are withheld from the report by request.

INTRODUCTION In 2019, the City of Indianapolis released its first ever sustainability and resiliency action plan. Branded as Thrive Indianapolis, the plan outlines a range of goals across eight plan elements. One of those plan elements is Built Environment.2 Thrive Indianapolis is organized with two objectives for each plan element. For Built Environment, the objectives are as follows: â&#x20AC;˘

All new buildings meet basic green standards, and programs to increase energy and water efficiency are actively pursued in existing buildings.

â&#x20AC;˘

All new infrastructure is designed, built and maintained to be resilient to the anticipated impact of climate change, and investments are prioritized base on the 2018 Vulnerability Assessment.

emissions from the building sector were reduced by 17% from 2010 to 2016. To meet its goals, the City will need to creatively assess every aspect of service and commerce. Perhaps most critical, the City of Indianapolis will need to define the relationship between its built environment and the resources required to construct and operate its building stock. Designing highperformance, environmentally responsible green buildings - to a holistic certified standard - is a foundational opportunity to literally build its sustainability and resiliency commitments into the fabric of the community. In an effort to truly understand the relationship between sustainability performance and cost in Indianapolis and the surrounding region, the Indianapolis High-Performance Building Cost Effectiveness Study (Indy-HPB) offers an independent, third-party assessment of the costs to designing and constructing a building to meet LEED certification. The Indy-HPB study offers information to help inform regional municipalities and the marketplace as to the cost-benefit of certified green building. Ball State University, Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf, and Turner Construction collaborated to study a recently completed roughly code-minimum ("spec") suburban office building and gauge every available LEED credit under the current version of the rating system - LEED version 4 (LEEDv4) - in terms of feasibility, construction ("hard") cost impacts, nonconstruction ("soft") project cost impacts, and operations and maintenance cost impacts.

While a specific "green standard" was not identified in the plan, the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star certification program are specifically referenced in Thrive Indianapolis. Moreover, in April 2018, Mayor Joe Hogsett launched Indy 3.0 - an initiative of the Mayor's administration that will advance the city's infrastructure, including municipal buildings, in the interest of public safety, accessibility, and resiliency. As part of Indy 3.0, "the City of Indianapolis has committed that all newly constructed municipal buildings built after 2018 meet LEED Certified or equivalent standards.â&#x20AC;?

It is the authors' hope that this study - while admittedly limited to one project - may be leveraged as a conversation starter, or a proof-of-concept, that a case can be made for certified green building in Indianapolis and across the Midwest, but success will hinge on a several factors - including early goalsetting and a collaborative, integrative design process.

The City should be commended for its leadership, transparency and data-driven approach toward the goals of its recent plans and initiatives. The City has a clear vision to achieve two overarching goals related to climate change: 1.

Increase community resilience by prioritizing equity in policy, planning and project implementation.

Achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.

For its part, building account for 55% of Indianapolis' community-wide GHG emission. However, GHG

City of Indianapolis. Thrive Indianapolis. 2018. <https://www.thriveindianapolis.com> (accessed 21 May 2019). 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Indianapolis High-Performance Building Cost Effectiveness Study (Indy-HPB) used industrystandard cost-estimating and performance modeling software to create an assessment of initial construction costs and operational cost savings specific to the Indianapolis market that articulates the life-cycle cost benefits of green building certifications in the commercial building sector related to energy, water, human heath, and biodiversity.

performance. Theoretically, there are significant financial returns on the upgrades required to achieve green building certification, but Indiana architects and engineers lack reliable or relevant information to articulate the cost effectiveness of certification. IndyHPB equips the Indianapolis market and regional municipalities with the first high-performance building cost effectiveness study focused on third-party certified green building. Indy-HPB provides critical information for the City of Indianapolis, which recently announced that all newly constructed municipal buildings built after 2018 will be required to meet LEED certification or an equivalent standard. The City also recently completed its first sustainability and resiliency action plan, within which the certified green building was a goal related to the built environment and future development as part of the City's efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.

Goal Indy-HPB’s goal is to promote environmental responsibility by demonstrating the “Triple Bottom Line” (i.e., social, economic, environmental) value of green building and energy-efficient construction/retrofit standards by creating Indiana’s first cost-effectiveness study of green building certification. Significance Skanska’s City of Santa Monica High Performance Building Cost Effectiveness Study3 represents an industry standard for assessing green building design; however, the data is market-specific, and no such study has been executed for Indianapolis based on Indiana building codes and regulations. Indy-HPB breaks new ground by substantiating the costeffectiveness of achieving green building certification in the Indianapolis commercial building sector. IndyHPB has quantified the various upgrades to codecompliant building features and systems and has summarized the return on investment for the various upgrades, including the costs for third-party verification through the green building certification process on the basis of energy cost savings and other quantifiable returns related to the operations and maintenance of a model commercial facility.

Research Description Indy-HPB was a 7-month study from January-July 2019 that required the identification of an existing commercial building in the Indianapolis region that exhibited representative code-compliant construction. Recorded plans and specification information were procured then assessed in terms of strategies required to achieve LEEDv4 for Building Design and Construction (BD+C) certification. Each LEED prerequisite and credit was assessed for impacts on construction, non-construction, and operational/maintenance costs in 2019 dollars. Findings This study identified a 1.36% - 14.45% increase in total project costs for LEEDv4 certification, ranging from basic certification to Platinum, as compared to a typical Indianapolis-area suburban office building. The added costs come from a range of factors across all credit categories. The costs include both added construction costs and the supplemental services required by the project team to pursue and apply for LEED certification. The scope of this study did not entail a substantial redesign of the project. The intent was to maintain the existing design and consider

Benefits A standing regulatory moratorium4 has frozen Indiana’s codes, which are outdated and at odds with increasingly stringent green building certification systems, potentially creating an economic impediment to achieving green building due to increasing costs required to achieve the requisite thresholds of Cesare, Joel, et al. City of Santa Monica High Performance Building Cost Effectiveness Study. Santa Monica: Integral, 2015. City of Santa Monica. <https://www.smgov.net/ uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Green_ Building/SantaMonica_HighPerformanceStudy_Final.pdf> (accessed 21 May 2019).

GOV130031EOA.xml.pdf> (accessed 12 June 2019). State of Indiana Executive Order 13-03, signed by Governor Mike Pence and continued by Governor Eric Holcomb, places a moratorium on all new regulation unless you first pass a fiscal review by the Office of Management and budget to justify the new rule on either the basis that it reduces the regulatory burden, or it increases economic development.

State of Indiana. Executive Order 13-03. 2013. <http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20130206-IR4

Design Profile Baseline (As-Built)* LEEDv4 BD+C Certified LEEDv4 BD+C Silver LEEDv4 BD+C Gold LEEDv4 BD+C Platinum

Additional Project Cost N/A $189,699 $291,974

% Increase in Project Costs N/A 1.36% 2.10%

Simple Payback

$829,247

5.96%

11.2 Years

$2,010,185

14.45%

26.6 Years

N/A 2.9 Years 4.4 Years

* The existing project was built to meet or exceed the 2010 Indiana Energy Conservation Code, which is based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings with Indiana amendments.

"upgrades" to the as-built site, structure, envelope, and mechanical systems. The authors found that the simple payback for the LEEDv4 project premium would range between approximately 2.9 and 26.6 years for the Indy-HPB case study, depending on the certification level pursued. Both basic and LEED Silver certification had returns under 5 years. LEED Gold exhibited a payback just over 11 years. Note that health, wellness, productivity and societal benefits realized from LEED projects are not captured in this study. Teams may wish to consider such benefits when considering the prospect of LEED certification on future projects.

METHODOLOGY The study is based upon an actual, developer-led, project that was constructed in Fishers, Indiana - a suburban municipality immediately northeast of Indianapolis - in 2016. The project was designed by Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf in 2016 to meet or exceed the requirements of the 2010 Indiana Energy Conservation Code (2010 InECC)5, which is based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings6 with Indiana amendments. The project completed construction in 2017.

Project Information Basic project information. The developer and tenants of the actual project are confidential. As such, the address is not disclosed. Gross area of building: 80,000 sf Site area: 270,273 sf (6.2 acres) Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR): 0.2959 or 0.30 Occupancy: 320 full-time equivalent (FTE)

Through Ball State University, the Principal Investigator (PI) obtained the drawings, specifications, and cost information for the existing project in 2018. Then the PI, who has over a decade of LEED project experience and has administered over 1-million square feet of LEED certified space in Indiana, systematically assessed the project in terms of achieving every LEEDv4 BD+C prerequisite and credit. The PI collaborated with Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf as well as various consultants and vendors (including some with direct knowledge of the project being assessed) to further refine the LEED assessment. Throughout Spring 2019, a list of project changes was developed and revised over the course of the assessment.

In accordance with default occupancy counts from Appendix 2 of the LEEDv4 Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, the team assumed default occupancy numbers as follows: General office occupancy requires 250 gross square feet (gsf) per occupant. 80,000 gsf / 250 = 320 occupants

Assumptions and Clarifications Please note the following assumptions and clarifications regarding the scope of the study and the format of this report.

In March 2019, the list of project changes and various supporting documents were submitted to Turner Construction Company for cost estimating. The PI and Turner Construction Company coordinated as appropriate to ensure that the cost estimating exercise accurately captured the scope of the listed project changes required. The pricing exercise was completed in May 2019. From May through July 2019, all of the information for the study was aggregated, synthesized, and revised as appropriate to amass the final report. Funding This study was made possible through the generous support of the Sponsored Projects Administration (SPA) at Ball State University through its Aspire Internal Grant Program. The 2010 Indiana Energy Conservation Code (2010 InECC) is based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007 with Indiana Amendments. The amendments were last accessed on 21 May 2019 at <http://www.in.gov/legislative/ iac/T06750/A00190.pdf>

The authors have chosen to keep the original project and its Owner confidential. As such, some project-specific information and certain identifying artifacts from the study have been withheld from this report.

The project assessed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design version 4 (LEEDv4) Building Design and Construction (BD+C) rating system.7

The authors acknowledge that at the time of the Indy-HPB study, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) released the beta version of LEED version 4.1 (LEEDv4.1). The authors

2007: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2007.

U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction. Washington DC: U.S. Green Building Council, 2014. 7

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.16

acknowledge that LEEDv4.1 would in many cases favor the economic outcomes of the IndyHPB study. However, as of the time of this report LEEDv4.1 has not been subject to a member ballot vote and is subject to change. LEEDv4.1 is not considered as part of the scope of the IndyHPB study and thus is not addressed in this report. 4.

does account for Supplemental Services for LEED administration and documentation for the design and construction team. When credit options necessitate services that are beyond what would typically be assumed as included in basic LEED services, such soft costs are identified. An example of this is the Integrative Process credit, which calls for a LEED goalsetting workshop. This will require additional time and resources from a variety of stakeholders and as such is beyond the scope of basic LEED services.

LEED prerequisite and credit language is from the LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, V4, published by USGBC. Referenced language is slightly adapted for use in this report. The language incorporates all addenda and errata as of May 15, 2019. The transcribed language are excerpts publicly available at https://www.usgbc.org/credits

Alternative Compliance Path (ACP) options for credit compliance were only considered where noted.

Where credits indicate that there are no soft costs associated with the credit, this specifically refers to directly associated soft costs. This study

Where credits indicate that there are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit, this is in regard to significant operational and/or maintenance cost burdens anticipated to be directly associated with the credit. Expected routine operational and maintenance requirements are not broken out as additional expenses. Similarly, only significant and quantifiable operational and/or maintenance cost savings directly associated with a credit are identified and included in this study.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on findings from the Indy-HPB study, the authors offer the following recommendations: 1.

all new regulation unless the proposed regulation passes a fiscal review by the Office of Management and Budget to justify the new rule on either the basis that it reduces the regulatory burden or it increases economic development. The value proposition of pursuing certified green building, such as LEED certification, will only become more precarious over time unless the regulatory moratorium is lifted, and the state legislature commits to updating its building codes. Indiana’s current commercial energy code is based on ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. The current version of LEED (v4) references Standard 90.1-2010. The next version of LEED (v4.1) will reference Standard 90.1-2016. The greater the differential between code-minimum and a certified high-performance, the greater the increase in initial project costs. Perhaps <5% is acceptable today in many instances; but a >20% increase will not be. The U.S. Green Building Council and other developers of national green building rating systems may need to eventually consider less stringent performance thresholds of certain project types and jurisdictions.

This study is limited. It should be expanded to a greater sample size. According to the Indy-HPB study, LEED certification has the potential to be cost-effective in Indianapolis (meaning, there can be a full return on the investment) while also benefitting the environment and human health. However, the Indy-HPB study is a ‘proof-of-concept’ study. It demonstrates the potential cost effectiveness of LEED certification for one specific project located in a suburban Indianapolis location. A broader sample size would further substantiate any claims regarding the cost effectiveness of LEED certification in central Indiana.

Energy conservation measures and highefficiency mechanical systems in new construction and major renovation should calculate the economic rate of return based on forecasted energy costs. Indiana has enjoyed a reputation for having some of the most affordable energy in the nation. Data shows this cost advantage is eroding. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Indiana’s average price of electricity in the commercial sector was 10.88 cents per Kilowatthour as of March 2019. This was almost identical to the national average of 10.44 cents per Kilowatt-hour.8 The Indy-HPB study considered a simple return on investment based on current energy costs. Further assessment may consider the effect of forecasted energy costs. Should rates continue to increase, the return on certified green building will become more favorable.

Project teams should implement an integrative design process. Bringing together project stakeholders and multiple disciplines early in the design process is critical to realizing high-performance building outcomes. The Indy-HPB study identified numerous synergistic design strategies – including smart metering, green infrastructure, and optimized daylighting and electric lighting. As Boyd Paulson and Patrick MacLeamy have articulated, an integrative process shifts design efforts toward the front-end of a project timeline where there is maximum flexibility to make highimpact design decisions and interdisciplinary efforts are coordinated much sooner versus a more traditional design process. If project teams identify clear goals and stakeholders come together early in the design process, critical highimpact design responses will be identified through a collaborative discovery process, which

Indiana should update its building codes because the State’s current regulatory environment is straining the prospect of certified green building. State of Indiana Executive Order 13-039, signed by Governor Mike Pence and continued by Governor Eric Holcomb, places a moratorium on

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly with Data for March 2019. <https://www.eia.gov/ electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf> (accessed 12 June 2019).

State of Indiana. Executive Order 13-03. 2013. <http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20130206-IRGOV130031EOA.xml.pdf> (accessed 12 June 2019).

will better position a project to realize highperformance goals.10 11 5.

strategy. While this is a significant reduction in GHG emissions, the magnitude is far short of “net zero” emissions. The City’s goal will require a robust and comprehensive response across multiple sectors in order to achieve net zero emissions. Abundant access to renewable energy from the utility scale to on-site production will be critical for the building sector to realize its full potential for GHG emissions reductions.

Project teams should prioritize on-site renewable energy as part of a comprehensive certified green building strategy. On-site renewable energy was a major source of economic return in the Indy-HBP study. State legislation and the utility regulators will play a vital role to keep it economical. During the 2017 legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly passed Senate Bill 209, which rolls back Indiana’s net metering system by reducing the rate utilities pay to solar consumers for their excess electricity. Such legislation will have a direct significant impact on the economic return of on-site renewable energy production.12

Walkable communities should be prioritized due to potential environmental and human health benefits. One of the major disadvantages of the Indy-HPB case study was its suburban location. This was intentional. Dense, walkable communities with access to a diverse array of amenities reduces transportation energy intensity considerably. A recent study by BuildingGreen suggested that the transportation energy use for a code-compliant office building exceeds the site energy use intensity (EUI) by 11%.14 This shows that GHG emissions can be curbed considerably by promoting efficient, dense, diverse urban developments. Additionally, there is a public health benefit to dense, walkable, urban development. Physical inactivity poses one of the biggest modern threats to public health. The majority of people today are physically inactive. Modern transportation, labor saving conveniences, and sedentary jobs have created an environment in which millions of people fail to achieve the minimum level of activity necessary to help prevent type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, heart disease and other chronic conditions. In the U.S. alone, fewer than 50% of elementary school students, 10% of adolescents and 5% of adults obtain 30 minutes of daily physical activity.15 For all of these reasons and more, LEED prioritizes dense,

Municipalities and project teams should establish and become conversant in carbon impact metrics so that embodied and lifecycle carbon emissions can be more readily understood and addressed through building projects. The City of Indianapolis has announced that it aims to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. Recent data suggests that the building sector accounts for 66% of Indianapolis’ community-wide GHG. However, through successful building energy efficiency programs, GHG emission from the building sector have been reduced by 17% from 2010 to 2016.13 The Indy-HPB study showed that embodied and operational carbon emissions could be reduced considerably as part of a comprehensive approach to certified green building. In the study, embodied GHG emissions were reduced by 14.3% and operational carbon could be reduced by as much as 20.1%, depending on the LEED

Paulson, Boyd C. “Designing to Reduce Construction Costs.” Journal of the Construction Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. <https://www.danieldavis.com/ papers/boyd.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2019).

heading> (accessed 14 June 2019). Indiana Senate Bill 309 was signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb as Public Law 264 on May 2, 2019.

MacLeamy, Patrick. “MacLeamy Curve Diagram.” Collaboration, Integrated Information, and the Project Lifecycle in Building Design, Construction and Operation. The Construction Users Roundtable. WP-1202, 4 (August 2004). < https://kcuc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ Collaboration-Integrated-Information-and-the-ProjectLifecycle.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2019).

Thrive Indianapolis (2018).

Wilson, Alex, and Melton, Paula. “Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings.” BuildingGreen Report (November 2018). 14

International WELL Building Institute. The WELL Building Standard v1. Reference Guide (February 2016), 107. 15

State of Indiana. Senate Bill 309. 2017. <http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/senate /309#digest12

walkable site locations. As the Indy-HPB case study was in a suburban location, it was not eligible to pursue multiple location-related credits.

significant energy cost savings and yet exhibit at least a full return-on-investment over the lifecycle of the related building components. Across all four LEED strategies, energy cost savings ranged from 6.5% to 20.1%.17 The 22% Regional Priority performance threshold was not achieved for this study. This was due to a combination of many factors including the moderate cost of energy and a challenging climate.18

Project teams should budget for LEED soft costs in addition to hard costs. While the impact on initial construction costs for LEED certified projects can vary widely, the IndyHPB study suggests that the rate of return on the soft costs is consistent and relatively low. For the Indy-HPB study, the soft costs varied across the basic, Silver, Gold, and Platinum strategies; however, the simple payback was under four years in all four scenarios. This indicates that there is an economic value to the soft costs required to effectively pursue high-performance design and construction. For the Indy-HPB study, the simple payback for the LEED soft costs were as follows:

10. Project teams considering LEED certification should consider LEED v4.1. A preliminary assessment suggests to the authors that LEEDv4.1 (which as of this writing is launched as a beta version and has not yet been finalized and/or balloted by USGBC) could make certified green building more cost-effective. Some of the high-cost LEEDv4 credits appear to be more accessible under LEEDv4.1. For instance, in order to achieve the Architectural Sunlight Exposure (ASE) metric under the LEEDv4 Daylight credit, the Indy-HPB case study would need nearly $1.9 million in optimized exterior shading across the east, south, and west glazing areas. Under LEEDv4.1, the ASE metric may be addressed through window treatments, which the as-built project already includes. By implementing a building management system (BMS) system as part of a LEED certification strategy, mechanized roller shades would be feasible and such a strategy appears to meet the requirements of the revised LEEDv4.1 Daylight credit. Further study is required to fully gauge the impact of LEEDv4.1, but a preliminary assessment suggests that the revised rating system will favor the costeffectiveness of LEED certification considerably.

Basic: 3.4 Years Silver: 3.7 Years Gold: 3.4 Years Platinum: 3.5 Years

Project teams are advised to acknowledge the inherent local challenges to deep energy efficiency and set performance goals based on an ongoing energy modeling process. The energy conservation measures and mechanical systems upgrades required to pursue the energy cost savings improvements identified in the Optimize Energy Performance credit required a careful consideration of life-cycle costs and economic return. USGBC identified a 22% improvement over ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as a Regional Priority Credit threshold.16 This threshold was not set by happenstance. The Indy-HBP study struggled to identify a bundle of project improvements that could achieve

The credit awards a range of points for various percentages of improvement in energy performance. The range begins at 1 point for a 6% improvement and ends at 18 points for at least a 50% improvement. 16

From May 2016 through April 2019, Indianapolis has exhibited an average of 5,201 heating degree-days (HDD) and 1,442 cooling degree-days (CDD) per year, assuming a balance point temperature of 65Â°F. 18

Please note that additional energy cost savings may have been achieved due to on-site renewable energy systems. 17

LEED ASSESSEMENT: INTRODUCTION The following sections of this report comprise the LEED assessment for this Indy-HPB study. Each LEEDv4 BD+C credit was fully assessed with regards to: •

Project design / construction changes.

•

Construction cost impacts.

•

Non-construction cost impacts.

•

Operations and maintenance cost impacts.

Cost of Combined Certification Review (projects less than 250,000-sf): $4,560 (based on $0.057 / sf rate) General LEED Soft Costs Many LEED credits will indicate no directly associated soft costs when clearly, additional work would be required to fully execute and document the LEED credit. For instance, it would require an additional effort for a Contractor to collect at least 20 different environmental product declarations for the related Building Product Disclosure and Optimization (BPDO) credit or for an architect to quantify and graphically depict roof and nonroof strategies for the Heat Island Reduction credit. If the additional effort required would be considered standard operating procedure within the typical scope of work for LEED implementation / documentation / administration, then it is assumed the extra effort is covered by the LEED service fees assumed in this study. Those fees are as follows:

Every credit was assessed regardless of whether or not it was ultimately pursued for a LEED certification track. For an exhibit of which credits were pursued for each certification track in this study, please refer to Appendix A: LEEDv4 BD+C Scorecard Summary. Project Change Items Throughout this report, substantive project changes are referred to as project change items – or “items” for short. Items may or may not have cost implications for the project, but the itemization of changes proved to be a useful convention with regard to organizing information for this report among a wide and diverse team of primary and secondary contributors.

Item 096: LEED Documentation – LEED Administrator / Architect This is the primary point-of-contact on the project for LEED coordination. It is presumed that this person will coordinate Owner and Architect-related LEED items. The authors have assumed that this item constitutes the Supplemental Service fee for the Architect to execute LEED-related work.

LEED Registration and Certification Fees LEEDv4 BD+C requires a fee for both project registration and certification review.

Soft Cost: $40,000 Item 097: LEED Documentation – MEP Engineer This is the Supplemental Service fee for the mechanical / electrical / plumbing engineer to execute their LEED scope of work.

Item 094: LEED Project Registration The authors did not assume that a USGBC member company would be involved with the project. USGBC members are entitled to a $300 discount on the cost of registration. This was not included in this study.

Soft Cost: $50,000 Item 098: LEED Documentation / Implementation – Contractor This is the fee from the Contractor to execute LEED duties on the project and coordinate the work of Subcontractors with regard to LEED-related work.

Cost of LEED Registration: $1,500 Item 095: LEED Combined Review LEED projects have the option of separated design and construction reviews or a single combined review. The combined review is slightly more cost-effective and was assumed for this study.

Soft Cost: $35,000

LEEDv4 BD+C - INTEGRATIVE PROCESS: CREDIT 1

IPc1: INTEGRATIVE PROCESS POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To support high-performance, cost-effective project outcomes through an early analysis of the interrelationships among systems.

teleworking, reduction of building area, and anticipated operations and maintenance. Implementation: Document how the above analysis informed design and building form decisions in the project’s OPR and BOD and the eventual design of the project, including the following, as applicable:

Requirements Beginning in pre-design and continuing throughout the design phases, identify and use opportunities to achieve synergies across disciplines and building systems described below. Use the analyses to inform the owner’s project requirements (OPR), basis of design (BOD), design documents, and construction documents. Energy-Related Systems Discovery: Perform a preliminary “simple box” energy modeling analysis before the completion of schematic design that explores how to reduce energy loads in the building and accomplish related sustainability goals by questioning default assumptions. Assess at least two potential strategies associated with each of the following: •

Building and site program;

•

Building form and geometry;

•

Building envelope and façade treatments on different orientations;

•

Elimination and/or significant downsizing of building systems (e.g., HVAC, lighting, controls, Exterior materials, interior finishes, and functional program elements); and

•

Other systems.

AND Site conditions. Assess shading, exterior lighting, hardscape, landscaping, and adjacent site conditions.

•

Massing and orientation. Assess massing and orientation affect HVAC sizing, energy consumption, lighting, and renewable energy opportunities.

•

Basic envelope attributes. Assess insulation values, window-to-wall ratios, glazing characteristics, shading, and window operability.

•

Lighting levels. Assess interior surface reflectance values and lighting levels in occupied spaces.

•

Thermal comfort ranges. Assess thermal comfort range options.

•

Plug and process load needs. Assess reducing plug and process loads through programmatic solutions (e.g., equipment and purchasing policies, layout options).

•

Water-Related Systems Discovery: Perform a preliminary water budget analysis before the completion of schematic design that explores how to reduce potable water loads in the building and accomplish related sustainability goals. Assess and estimate the project’s potential nonpotable water supply sources and water demand volumes, including the following:

Programmatic and operational parameters. Assess multifunctioning spaces, operating schedules, space allotment per person,

•

Indoor water demand. Assess flow and flush fixture design case demand volumes, calculated in accordance with WE Prerequisite Indoor Water-Use Reduction.

•

Outdoor water demand. Assess landscape irrigation design case demand volume calculated in accordance with WE Credit Outdoor WaterUse Reduction.

•

Process water demand. Assess kitchen, laundry, cooling tower, and other equipment demand volumes, as applicable.

•

Supply sources. Assess all potential nonpotable water supply source volumes, such as on-site rainwater and graywater, municipally supplied

nonpotable water, and HVAC equipment condensate.

Table IPc1-A: Fee breakdown for workshop preparation. Task Hours Rate Total Preliminary 8 $150/hr $1,200 “simple box” energy modeling analysis. Assess at least 4 $150/hr $600 two potential strategies. Document how 4 $150/hr $600 the energy analysis informed design and building form decisions in the project’s OPR and BOD and the eventual design of the project. Perform a 8 $150/hr $1,200 preliminary water budget analysis. Document how 4 $150/hr $600 the above analysis informed building and site design decisions in the project’s OPR and BOD. Total $4,200

Implementation: Document how the above analysis informed building and site design decisions in the project’s OPR and BOD. Demonstrate how at least one on-site nonpotable water supply source was analyzed to reduce the burden on municipal supply or wastewater treatment systems by contributing to at least two of the water demand components listed above. Demonstrate how the analysis informed the design of the project, including the following, as applicable: •

plumbing systems;

•

sewage conveyance and/or on-site treatment systems;

•

rainwater quantity and quality management systems;

•

landscaping, irrigation, and site elements;

•

roofing systems and/or building form and geometry; and

•

other systems.

Table IPc1-B: Fee breakdown to execute a halfday LEED goal-setting workshop. Task Hours Rate Total Owner 6 $150/hr $900 representation Discipline 1: 6 $150/hr $900 Architect / LEED administrator Discipline 2: Civil 6 $150/hr $900 engineer or Landscape Architect Discipline 3: 6 $150/hr $900 Mechanical Engineer Discipline 4: 6 $150/hr $900 Commissioning Agent LEED workshop 16 $150/hr $2,400 facilitator + prep + producing the LEED Action Plan Total $6,900

001: LEED Goal-Setting Workshop LEEDv4 requires project teams to conduct a LEED goal-setting workshop / charrette no later than the end of Schematic Design. The workshop was assumed to be 4-hours in duration with representation from no less than four (4) entities – including the Owner. Hard Costs The study did not identify any hard costs specific to the Integrative Process credit requirements. Addition hard costs: $0

Soft Costs The study assessed the minimum soft costs to conduct a 4-hour LEED goal-setting workshop. The soft costs associated with this credit could vary quite widely depending on the composition of the project team and the nature of the project. This study developed costs assuming four different parties would each send a representative with an average travel distance of 1-hour each and an average billable rate of $150/hour. Additional soft costs: $11,000 Operations and Maintenance The Indy-HPB study revealed a substantial potential savings in operational costs due to the reduced energy and water costs directly associated with the strategies identified as part of this credit. However, these savings are associated with the other credits specifically corresponding to the implementation of these strategies. As such, this credit does not exhibit any direct O+M cost impacts. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 1

LTc1: LEED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT LOCATION POINTS POSSIBLE: 8-16 Intent To avoid development on inappropriate sites. To reduce vehicle distance traveled. To enhance livability and improve human health by encouraging daily physical activity.

(1) LEED-ND project of any sort is currently registered in the State of Indiana: LEED ND: Built Project v3 - LEED 2009 MFCDC 20-21 Project 130 East 30th Street Indianapolis, IN 46205

Requirements Locate the project within the boundary of a development certified under LEED for Neighborhood Development (Stage 2 or Stage 3 under the Pilot or 2009 rating systems, Certified Plan or Certified Project under the LEED v4 rating system).

The Indy-HPB project is located in Fishers and does not appear to be within a LEED-ND project. This scenario would be typical of the vast majority of commercial projects in Indiana.

Projects attempting this credit are not eligible to earn points under other Location and Transportation credits.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

Points are awarded according to the following table. Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Table LTc1-A: Points for LEED-ND location Certification Level Points BD&C Certified 8 Silver 10 Gold 12 Platinum 16

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Assessment The Indy-HPB case study was not eligible for this credit. As of this time of the Indy-HPB study, only one

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 2

LTc2: SENSITIVE LAND PROTECTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To avoid the development of environmentally sensitive lands and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building on a site.

•

Wetlands: Areas on or within 50 feet (15 meters) of a wetland, except for minor improvements.

Requirements Option 1. Locate the development footprint on land that has been previously developed.

Minor improvements within the wetland and water body buffers may be undertaken to enhance appreciation of them, provided such facilities are open to all building users. Only the following improvements are considered minor:

•

Bicycle and pedestrian pathways no more than 12 feet wide, of which no more than 8 feet may be impervious;

•

Activities to maintain or restore native natural communities and/or natural hydrology;

Prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance as defined by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Volume 6, Parts 400 to 699, Section 657.5 (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.) and identified in a state Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey) or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.).

•

One single-story structure per 300 linear feet on average, not exceeding 500 square feet;

•

Grade changes necessary to ensure public access;

•

Clearings, limited to one per 300 linear feet on average, not exceeding 500 square feet each;

Floodplains: a flood hazard area shown on a legally adopted flood hazard map or otherwise legally designated by the local jurisdiction or the state. For projects in places without legally adopted flood hazard maps or legal designations, locate on a site that is entirely outside any floodplain subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

•

Removal of the following tree types:

Option 2. Locate the development footprint on land that has been previously developed or that does not meet the following criteria for sensitive land: •

•

Hazardous trees, up to 75% of dead trees Trees less than 6 inches diameter at breast height Up to 20% of trees more than 6 inches diameter at breast height with a condition rating of 40% or higher.

Habitat: Land that is identified as habitat for the following:

Trees under 40% condition rating species listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the state’s endangered species act, or

The condition rating must be based on an assessment by an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) using ISA standard measures, or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.

species or ecological communities classified by NatureServe as GH (possibly extinct), G1 (critically imperiled), or G2 (imperiled), or • species listed as threatened or endangered specifies under local equivalent standards (for projects outside the U.S.) that are not covered by NatureServe data. •

Brownfield remediation activities.

Water bodies: Areas on or within 100 feet of a water body, except for minor improvements.

level photography were assessed as part of this study.

The authors also assessed the flood hazard for the project. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides flood hazard maps through their Map Service Center (MSC)19. Based on MSC data, the project is not in a floodplain per FEMA.

Item 002: Assessment of Sensitive Land Criteria There were some initial concerns that the project was located on prime farmland. “Prime farmland” is defined by USDA in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Volume 6, Parts 400– 699, Section 657.5 (citation 7CFR657.5) as follows:

The authors believe the project site meets the LEED credit criteria regarding habitat and proximity to water bodies and wetlands. The project is over 3,000 feet away from a minor body of water. It is not located on a brownfield. There was some minor clearing of existing trees. None of the trees were old growth. From visual inspection, it does not appear that any of the trees exceeded LEED’s 6-inch diameter threshold.

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land or other land, but not urban built-up land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods.”

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

For the full definition and description of prime farmlands, see the National Archives and Records Administration for the Code of Federal Regulations; search by citation.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Though it appears that the site was used as farmland to some extent in the recent past, the property had more recently been acquired by a developer and no longer had utility as farmland at the time the client decided to establish a headquarters. In accordance with this definition, the project is not located on prime farmland.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

msc.fema.gov 23

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 3

LTc3: HIGH PRIORITY SITE POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 (REGIONAL PRIORITY AT 2 POINTS) Intent To encourage project location in areas with development constraints and promote the health of the surrounding area.

Locate on a brownfield where soil or groundwater contamination has been identified, and where the local, state, or national authority (whichever has jurisdiction) requires its remediation. Perform remediation to the satisfaction of that authority.

Requirements Option 1. Historic district (1 point) Locate the project on an infill location in a historic district.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment The Indy-HPB case study was not eligible for this credit. This project is not located in a historic district. This project is not believed to have any of the Option 2 designations under this credit. The project is not located on a brownfield and would be ineligible for this credit option.

OR Option 2. Priority designation (1 point) Locate the project on one of the following: •

a site listed by the EPA National Priorities List;

•

a Federal Empowerment Zone site;

•

a Federal Enterprise Community site;

•

a Federal Renewal Community site;

•

a Department of the Treasury Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Qualified Low-Income Community (a subset of the New Markets Tax Credit Program);

•

As this project is not eligible for any of the thee options, this credit is not achievable. This reaffirms the importance of siting for LEED projects. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

a site in a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Qualified Census Tract (QCT) or Difficult Development Area (DDA); or

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

a local equivalent program administered at the national level for projects outside the U.S.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

OR Option 3. Brownfield remediation (2 points)

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 4

LTc4: SURROUNDING DENSITY AND DIVERSE USES POINTS POSSIBLE: 5 (REGIONAL PRIORITY AT 2 POINTS) •

Intent To conserve land and protect farmland and wildlife habitat by encouraging development in areas with existing infrastructure. To promote walkability, and transportation efficiency and reduce vehicle distance traveled. To improve public health by encouraging daily physical activity.

The counted uses must represent at least three of the five categories, exclusive of the building’s primary use.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment Option 1: The vast majority of the land within ¼ mile radius of the project is far below the necessary 22,000 sf of density per acre. The ¼ mile radius captures 5.47 million square feet. That would require 2,765,400 square feet of density within the radius. The project itself is approximately 80,000 square feet. An adjacent laboratory facility is 168,800 sf.

Requirements Option 1. Surrounding density (2–3 points) Locate on a site whose surrounding existing density within a ¼-mile [400-meter] radius of the project boundary meets the values in Table 1. Use either the “separate residential and nonresidential densities” or the “combined density” values. Table LTc4-A: Points for average density within 1/4 mile of project site Combined Separate Residential and Pts Density Nonresidential Densities Square Residential Nonresidential feet per Density Density (FAR) acre of (DU/acre) buildable land 22,000 7 0.5 2 35,000 12 0.8 3

Item 003: Location with Proximity to Amenities The project would not be eligible for Option 1. This speaks to the need for density with locating LEED projects. This credit is a Regional Priority Credit – with further speaks to this. Option 2: The following diverse uses were located within ½ mile of the project. Please note that specific names have been withheld to ensure the anonymity of the case study. 1.

Civic and community facilities – education (K-12 school)

AND/OR

Civic and community facilities – medical Clinic

Option 2. Diverse uses (1–2 points) Construct or renovate a building or a space within a building such that the building’s main entrance is within a ½-mile (800-meter) walking distance of the main entrance of four to seven (1 point) or eight or more (2 points) existing and publicly available diverse uses (listed in Appendix 1 of the LEED Reference Guide).

Service – family entertainment venue

Community anchor uses – housing (100 or more dwelling units) – apartments

Community anchor uses – housing (100 or more dwelling units) – housing development

Community-serving retail - other retail – electronics store.

Community-service retail – other retail – furniture store

Food retail – supermarket – grocer

DU = dwelling unit; FAR = floor-area ratio.

The following restrictions apply. •

A use counts as only one type (e.g., a retail store may be counted only once even if it sells products in several categories).

•

No more than two uses in each use type may be counted (e.g. if five restaurants are within walking distance, only two may be counted).

With eight (8) or more qualifying existing and publicly available diverse uses near the project, even in its relatively suburban location it could qualify for two (2) points under this credit option. This speaks to the

benefits of having a project located within proximity to amenities. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional hard costs: $0

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 5

LTc5: ACCESS TO QUALITY TRANSIT POINTS POSSIBLE: 5 Intent To encourage development in locations shown to have multimodal transportation choices or otherwise reduced motor vehicle use, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and other environmental and public health harms associated with motor vehicle use.

Projects served by two or more transit routes such that no one route provides more than 60% of the prescribed levels may earn one additional point, up to the maximum number of points. If existing transit service is temporarily rerouted outside the required distances for less than two years, the project may meet the requirements, provided the local transit agency has committed to restoring the routes with service at or above the prior level.

Requirements Locate any functional entry of the project within a ¼mile (400-meter) walking distance of existing or planned bus, streetcar, or informal transit stops, or within a ½-mile (800-meter) walking distance of existing or planned bus rapid transit stops, light or heavy rail stations, commuter rail stations or ferry terminals. The transit service at those stops and stations in aggregate must meet the minimums listed in Tables 1 and 2. Planned stops and stations may count if they are sited, funded, and under construction by the date of the certificate of occupancy and are complete within 24 months of that date.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment There is one bus route near the project - the Indy Express Bus, which is a collaboration of Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority (CIRTA), Miller Transportation, and the Town of Fishers. The Downtown Indianapolis – Fisher shuttle stops at a Park-and-Ride lot located at the corner of 106th Street and Lantern Road. This is over a mile from the project site. This is one bus route and one stop and it is beyond the ½ mile threshold. Therefore, this project would not qualify for this credit.

Both weekday and weekend trip minimums must be met. •

Qualifying transit routes must have paired route service (service in opposite directions).

•

For each qualifying transit route, only trips in one direction are counted towards the threshold.

•

If a qualifying transit route has multiple stops within the required walking distance, only trips from one stop are counted towards the threshold.

This situation is not atypical for a project located in the suburbs of Indianapolis. This credit represents a large number of points (5) – potentially half of a certification level in most scenarios. This speaks to the critical need to locate a LEED project nears hubs of alternative transportation.

Table LTc5-A: Minimum daily transit service for projects with multiple transit types (bus, streetcar, rail, or ferry) Weekday Weekend Points Trips Trips 72 40 1 144 108 3 360 216 5

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

Table LTc5-B: Minimum daily transit service for projects with commuter rail or ferry service only Weekday Weekend Points Trips Trips 24 6 1 40 8 2 60 12 3

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 6

LTc6: BICYCLE FACILITIES POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To promote bicycling and transportation efficiency and reduce vehicle distance traveled. To improve public health by encouraging utilitarian and recreational physical activity.

Provide long-term bicycle storage for at least 30% of all regular building occupants, but no less than one storage space per residential unit in addition to the short-term bicycle storage spaces. Case 3. mixed-use projects Meet the Case 1 and Case 2 storage requirements for the nonresidential and residential portions of the project, respectively.

Requirements Bicycle network Design or locate the project such that a functional entry and/or bicycle storage is within a 200-yard (180meter) walking distance or bicycling distance from a bicycle network that connects to at least one of the following:

For all projects Short-term bicycle storage must be within 100 feet (30 meters) walking distance of any main entrance. Longterm bicycle storage must be within 100 feet (30 meters) walking distance of any functional entry.

•

at least 10 diverse uses (see Appendix 1 in the LEED Reference Guide);

•

a school or employment center, if the project total floor area is 50% or more residential; or

Bicycle storage capacity may not be double-counted: storage that is fully allocated to the occupants of nonproject facilities cannot also serve project occupants.

•

a bus rapid transit stop, light or heavy rail station, commuter rail station, or ferry terminal.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment The current facility has two (2) Metro 7-Bike/5-Loop Rack, Powder Coated, Surface Mount bike racks approximately 206 feet away from the east-facing main entry. Combined, these two racks would provide short-term service to 14 bikes.

All destinations must be within a 3-mile (4800-meter) bicycling distance of the project boundary. Planned bicycle trails or lanes may be counted if they are fully funded by the date of the certificate of occupancy and are scheduled for completion within one year of that date.

Short-Term Bicycle Storage As the building would expect occasional visitors (far less than 100 per day; an expected peak of less than 50) the short-term bicycle storage far exceeds the threshold of 2.5% of all peak visitors and complies with the LEED requirement.

Bicycle Storage and Shower Rooms Case 1. commercial or institutional projects Provide short-term bicycle storage for at least 2.5% of all peak visitors, but no fewer than four storage spaces per building.

Long-Term Bicycle Storage At 320 FTE, the building will need to provide longterm parking for 16 bikes. LEED defines long-term bicycle storage as bicycle parking that is easily accessible to residents and employees and covered to protect bicycles from rain and snow.

Provide long-term bicycle storage for at least 5% of all regular building occupants, but no fewer than four storage spaces per building in addition to the shortterm bicycle storage spaces. Provide at least one on-site shower with changing facility for the first 100 regular building occupants and one additional shower for every 150 regular building occupants thereafter.

Item 004: Bike Locker Banks On option considers adding CycleSafe ProPark Bike Locker Banks (or equivalent) along the southern hardscape. The project could install eight (8) twosides (for two bikes) lockers with a custom color. These would need to be installed on the south hardscape near the existing bike racks.

Case 2. residential projects Provide short-term bicycle storage for at least 2.5% of all peak visitors but no fewer than four storage spaces per building.

A preliminary pricing exercise revealed an exceptionally high cost to install the lockers. As an alternative to the lockers, the authors considered internal (secure) bike racks (Item 005).

schedule pathway. The pathway connects to a wide range of diverse uses, the bus shuttle to downtown Indianapolis, an elementary school, and an apartment complex â&#x20AC;&#x201C; all within 3 miles.

Item 005: Bike Racks For the long-term bike storage, our team will proceed with using the existing vestibule as it is large enough to accommodate the bike racks and is ideally located at the major building entry.

It appears that the project team did not install the concrete bike path as originally designed. This 3,780 sf of light-colored (i.e., high SRI for heat island reduction) concrete would need to be added. Hard Costs Item 005 can be utilized in lieu of item 004, which would save over $30,000. The project could achieve this credit by electing for items 005, 006, and 007.

This item calls to add two (2) Dero DoubleUp Bike Racks (or equivalent), each for 8-bikes (for a 16-bike total). 17-in x eight (8) isles equals 136-in in width for the Dero Double Up SpaceSaver (the basis-of-design product for this exercise).

Additional hard costs: $74,595 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Item 006: Shower & Changing Rooms Add a third shower and changing room adjacent to and similar to the two existing rooms on the southeast corner of the first floor. This 136-sf room would be taken from the cafĂŠ space. It would feature a shower stall, a toilet, and a countertop with an inset sink and mirror.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Item 007: Install Bike Lane Fishers has a proposed bike network under development. The project site incorporates part of the

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 7

LTc7: REDUCED PARKING FOOTPRINT POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To minimize the environmental harms associated with parking facilities, including automobile dependence, land consumption, and rainwater runoff.

Requirements Do not exceed the minimum local code requirements for parking capacity.

Assessment The authors anticipate that the project could achieve at least two points under LT Credit Surrounding Density and Divers Uses, therefore Case 1 was pursued even though the project’s suburban location is not very dense.

Provide parking capacity that is a percentage reduction below the base ratios recommended by the Parking Consultants Council, as shown in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Transportation Planning Handbook, 3rd edition, Tables 18-2 through 18-4.

Item 008: Remove 74,500-sf of Parking The 20% and 40% reductions from the base ratios were calculated as follows:

Case 1. Baseline location Projects that have not earned points under LT Credit Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses or LT Credit Access to Quality Transit must achieve a 20% reduction from the base ratios.

3.8 - (0.4*(55,000) / 75,000)) = 3.8 - (0.4 / 0.7333) = 3.8 - 0.2933 = 3.5067 (per 1,000 sf)

Case 2. Dense and/or transit-served location Projects earning 1 or more points under either LT Credit Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses or LT Credit Access to Quality Transit must achieve a 40% reduction from the base ratios.

3.5067 * 80 = 280.54 spaces for the base ratio 280.536 * 0.8 = 224.43 spaces at the 20% reduction. 280.536 * 0.6 = 168.32 spaces at the 40% reduction. Target: 168 spaces (40% reduction)

For all projects The credit calculations must include all existing and new off-street parking spaces that are leased or owned by the project, including parking that is outside the project boundary but is used by the project. Onstreet parking in public rights-of-way is excluded from these calculations.

This requires a dramatic 58%% reduction in the current parking capacity of the project. For over 300 employees at this facility, this would equate to 74,500square feet – likely a stunning reduction in the eyes of many. This level of reduction will require a more creative approach to addressing parking – which is behind the credit intent.

For projects that use pooled parking, calculate compliance using the project’s share of the pooled parking.

There are financial benefits to the reduced parking, however. Replacing the asphalt with non-turf vegetation would save on site development costs and would likely increase the ecosystem services of the project site. For instance, this vegetated area could contain bioswales for the SS Rainwater Management credit.

Provide preferred parking for carpools for 5% of the total parking spaces after reductions are made from the base ratios. Preferred parking is not required if no off-street parking is provided. Mixed-use projects should determine the percentage reduction by first aggregating the parking amount of each use (as specified by the base ratios) and then determining the percentage reduction from the aggregated parking amount.

Regarding preferred parking, the project would need to allocate such spaces for carpools for 5% of the parking lot. For 89 spaces (after reduction), this would be 4.45 (round up to 5 spaces). These spaces could be located adjacent to the accessibility spaces near the east-facing main entry.

Do not count parking spaces for fleet and inventory vehicles unless these vehicles are regularly used by

Hard Costs

Item 008 was estimated to reduce the site development cost by a considerable margin. Additional hard costs: $184,840

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Additional soft costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - LOCATION & TRANSPORTATION: CREDIT 8

LTc8: GREEN VEHICLES POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To reduce pollution by promoting alternatives to conventionally fueled automobiles.

Option 2. Liquid, gas, or battery facilities Install liquid or gas alternative fuel fueling facilities or a battery switching station capable of refueling a number of vehicles per day equal to at least 2% of all parking spaces.

Requirements Designate 5% of all parking spaces used by the project as preferred parking for green vehicles. Clearly identify and enforce for sole use by green vehicles. Distribute preferred parking spaces proportionally among various parking sections (e.g. between short-term and long-term spaces).

Green vehicles must achieve a minimum green score of 45 on the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) annual vehicle rating guide (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.).

Item 009: Post and Panel Signage The green vehicle spaces would need signage and striping for identification purposes.

A discounted parking rate of at least 20% for green vehicles is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking spaces. The discounted rate must be publicly posted at the entrance of the parking area and permanently available to every qualifying vehicle.

Item 010: Charging Stations (Material) 5% of 168 parking spaces is 8.4. Therefore, we would need to designate 9 spaces for green vehicles. 2% of 168 parking spaces is 3.36. Therefore, we would need to designate 4 spaces for electric vehicles.

In addition to preferred parking for green vehicles, meet one of the following two options for alternativefuel fueling stations:

The electric vehicle spaces would need to be level 2 units. The basis-of-design product would be the Webasto 32 Amp Plug-In station.

Option 1. Electric vehicle charging Install electrical vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) in 2% of all parking spaces used by the project. Clearly identify and reserve these spaces for the sole use by plug-in electric vehicles. Parking spaces that include EVSE must be provided separate from and in addition to preferred parking spaces for green vehicles.

Item 011: Charging Stations (Labor) The cost of labor was broken out as a separate line item. Items 012: Charging Stations (Trenching) It is anticipated that approximately 232 feet of trenching and electric cable from the project service point would be necessary.

The EVSE must: •

Provide a Level 2 charging capacity (208 – 240 volts) or greater.

Hard Costs Items 009 through 012 would add hard costs.

•

Comply with the relevant regional or local standard for electrical connectors, such as SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J1772, SAE Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler or IEC 62196 of the International Electrotechnical Commission for projects outside the U.S.

Additional hard costs: $18,405

Be networked or internet addressable and be capable of participating in a demand-response program or time-of-use pricing to encourage offpeak charging.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

•

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SUSTAINABLE SITES: PREREQUISITE 1

SSp1: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY POLLUTION PREVENTION POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation, and airborne dust.

case for the State of Indiana. Regulators often threaten heavy fines for not complying with CGP requirements, so most projects do so without the added incentive of the LEED prerequisite.

Requirements Create and implement an erosion and sedimentation control plan (ESC) for all construction activities associated with the project. The plan must conform to the erosion and sedimentation requirements of the 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Construction General Permit (CGP)20 or local equivalent, whichever is more stringent. Projects must apply the CGP regardless of size. The plan must describe the measures implemented.

Hard Costs Jurisdictional requirements would be specified in the bid documents and would not necessitate a cost increase for the project. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. A civil engineer would develop the ESC plan as standard operating procedure (SOP). The Contractor would be responsible to execute the scope of this prerequisite as SOP.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Item 013: Define and Execute the ESC plan Complying with this prerequisite is standard practice in most urban and suburban areas in the U.S., where most or all of the EPA Construction General Permit (CGP) requirements have been adopted and implemented at the state or county level. This is the

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's 2012 Construction General Permit (CGP) and Related Documents. <https://www.epa.gov/npdes/epas-2012-

construction-general-permit-cgp-and-related-documents> (accessed 24 May 2019).

LEEDv4 BD+C – SUSTAINABLE SITES: CREDIT 1

SSc1: SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To assess site conditions before design to evaluate sustainable options and inform related decisions about site design.

Requirements Complete and document a site survey or assessment1 that includes the following information: •

Topography. Contour mapping, unique topographic features, slope stability risks.

•

Hydrology. Flood hazard areas, delineated wetlands, lakes, streams, shorelines, rainwater collection and reuse opportunities, TR-55 initial water storage capacity of the site (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.).

•

Climate. Solar exposure, heat island effect potential, seasonal sun angles, prevailing winds, monthly precipitation and temperature ranges.

•

Vegetation. Primary vegetation types, greenfield area, significant tree mapping, threatened or endangered species, unique habitat, invasive plant species.

•

Assessment There is a considerable amount of overlap between this credit and IPc1: Integrated Process; but while IPc1 is geared towards planning building services, the focus of this credit is on ecology, hydrology, and the social value of the site. This credit would not bear a direct cost increase but would require a significant amount of time from a landscape architect that would be beyond the Standard of Care and beyond the scope of Basic Services. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Landscape Architect would be responsible for executing a Site Analysis.

Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service soils delineation, U.S. Department of Agriculture prime farmland, healthy soils, previous development, disturbed soils (local equivalent standards may be used for projects outside the U.S.).

•

Human use. Views, adjacent transportation infrastructure, adjacent properties, construction materials with existing recycle or reuse potential.

•

Human health effects. Proximity of vulnerable populations, adjacent physical activity opportunities, proximity to major sources of air pollution.

Item 014: Site Assessment From recent experiences on LEED v4 projects in the Indianapolis region, the authors anticipate that a LEED-compliant site assessment would require 24 hours of work by an experienced Landscape Architect x $150/hours = $3,600 of Supplemental Services. Additional soft costs: $3,600 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

The survey or assessment should demonstrate the relationships between the site features and topics

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - SUSTAINABLE SITES: CREDIT 2

SSc2: SITE DEVELOPMENT – PROTECT OR RESTORE HABITAT POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Requirements Preserve and protect from all development and construction activity 40% of the greenfield area on the site (if such areas exist).

Project teams may exclude vegetated landscape areas that are constructed to accommodate rainwater infiltration from the vegetation and soils requirements, provided all such rainwater infiltration areas are treated consistently with SS Credit Rainwater Management.

AND Option 1. on-site restoration (2 points) Using native or adapted vegetation, restore 30% (including the building footprint) of all portions of the site identified as previously disturbed. Projects that achieve a density of 1.5 floor-area ratio may include vegetated roof surfaces in this calculation if the plants are native or adapted, provide habitat, and promote biodiversity.

OR Option 2. financial support (1 point) Provide financial support equivalent to at least $0.40 per square foot for the total site area (including the building footprint). Financial support must be provided to a nationally or locally recognized land trust or conservation organization within the same EPA Level III ecoregion or the project’s state (or within 100 miles of the project for projects outside the U.S.). For U.S. projects, the land trust must be accredited by the Land Trust Alliance.

Restore all disturbed or compacted soils that will be revegetated within the project’s development footprint to meet the following requirements21: •

Soils (imported and in situ) must be reused for functions comparable to their original function.

•

Imported topsoils or soil blends designed to serve as topsoil may not include the following:

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment Option 1: In order to fully ascertain sufficient information on the original function of the soils and to restore the soils in accordance with the five categories identified in the credit, less-experienced project team may need to invest in an environmental consultant for an assessment. Moreover, in some instances, a project team may need to invest the additional hard costs for restoring the soils. These expenses are not necessarily required and were not incorporated in this study as it is anticipated that the expenditures would not have been necessary.

soils defined regionally by the Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.) as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance; or soils from other greenfield sites, unless those soils are a byproduct of a construction process. •

Restored soil must meet the criteria of reference soils in categories 1–3 and meet the criteria of either category 4 or 5: 1.

compaction; infiltration rates; soil biological function; and soil chemical characteristics.

Option 2: This pathway provides a reasonable alternative through which project teams may provide financial support to a land trust or conservation

organic matter;

Components adapted from the Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009, Credit 7.2: Restore Soils Disturbed During Construction 35

organization while also restoring 30% or more of the site using native or adapted vegetation.

seeding (prairie with mild diversity) can be installed at $1,500-$3,500/acre. Yet, if a project team is comparing to sodding then the project would come out ahead financially if substituting prairie grass for a large area as sod can be $1-2/sf or $43,560â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 87,120/acre ($65,340 average/acre). We anticipate that 15,000 square feet of this area will be diverse native species with educational signage. The remaining area will be the native prairie.

The project team utilized Option 1 for the purposes of this study. Basic calculations are summarized as follows: Gross area of building: 80,000-sf Site area: 270,273-sf (6.2 acres)

Hard Costs The aggregate hard cost impact is anticipated to be a savings on this particular project. In some instances, restoring soils may come at an added cost. It is not anticipated that such costs would have been incurred on this particular project and therefore were not incorporated into this study.

FAR: 0.30 30% of 270,273-sf = 81,081.9-sf to be restored with native or adapted vegetation. 86,356-sf of the 270,273-sf site will be designated for restoration with native or adapted vegetation.

Additional hard costs: ($1,056) Native plantings: The â&#x20AC;&#x153;restoredâ&#x20AC;? 86,356 square feet of vegetated space on the site will re-establish a nature habitat and contain native species. (Per the Open Space credit, 5,000 square feet will constitute a walking path so that users can interact and there will be a small signage package to identify species.)

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Though in some instances, it may be necessary to hire an environmental consultant. Additional soft costs: $0

Item 015: Native Plants ($1,056) This item incorporates costs differentials associated with supplanting 11,840-sf of turf grass with native prairie grasses, reduced lawn establishment expenses, and additional educational signage.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. A case could be made that there are maintenance cost savings by way of reduced lawn maintenance; however, such savings have not been incorporated into this study.

Please note that 74,516-sf of this area was asphalt and accounted for under the Reduced Parking Footprint credit. Thus, 11,840-sf of current turf grass area will be changed to native species in pursuit of this credit. Recent projects have shown that native

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - SUSTAINABLE SITES: CREDIT 3

SSc3: OPEN SPACE POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To create exterior open space that encourages interaction with the environment, social interaction, passive recreation, and physical activities.

open space is not adjacent to the building, provide documentation showing that the requirements have been met and the land is in a natural state or has been returned to a natural state and conserved for the life of the building.

Requirements Provide outdoor space greater than or equal to 30% of the total site area (including building footprint). A minimum of 25% of that outdoor space must be vegetated (turf grass does not count as vegetation) or have overhead vegetated canopy.

The outdoor space must be physically accessible and be one or more of the following:

Gross area of building: 80,000-sf Site area: 270,273-sf (6.2 acres)

•

a pedestrian-oriented paving or turf area with physical site elements that accommodate outdoor social activities;

•

a recreation-oriented paving or turf area with physical site elements that encourage physical activity;

•

a garden space with a diversity of vegetation types and species that provide opportunities for year-round visual interest;

•

a garden space dedicated to community gardens or urban food production;

•

preserved or created habitat that meets the criteria of SS Credit Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat and also includes elements of human interaction.

FAR: 0.30 30% of 270,273-sf = 81,082-sf to be outdoor space; 67,569-sf to be vegetated Item 016: Non-Paved Pedestrian Path and Small Signage The native habitat established in the Site Development – Protect or Restore Habitat credit strikes a synergy with this credit as long as the 5,000sf pedestrian path (gravel) is retained for human interaction and the area contains a small signage package to identify species. Hard Costs The gravel pedestrian path and signage would add a cost increase. Please note that the hard costs associated with item 016 are contingent on the SiteDevelopment – Protect or Restore Habitat credit being pursued.

For projects that achieve a density of 1.5 floor-area ratio (FAR), and are physically accessible, extensive or intensive vegetated roofs can be used toward the minimum 25% vegetation requirement, and qualifying roof-based physically accessible paving areas can be used toward credit compliance.

Additional hard costs: $12,181 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Wetlands or naturally designed ponds may count as open space if the side slope gradients average 1:4 (vertical: horizontal) or less and are vegetated.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

For projects that are part of a multitenant complex only. Open space can be either adjacent to the building or at another location in the site master plan. The open space may be at another master plan development site as long as it is protected from development. If the

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - SUSTAINABLE SITES: CREDIT 4

SSc4: RAINWATER MANAGEMENT POINTS POSSIBLE: 3 (REGIONAL PRIORITY AT 2 POINTS) Intent To reduce runoff volume and improve water quality by replicating the natural hydrology and water balance of the site, based on historical conditions and undeveloped ecosystems in the region.

Requirements Option 1. Percentile of rainfall events Path 1. 95th percentile (2 points) In a manner best replicating natural site hydrology processes, manage on site the runoff from the developed site for the 95th percentile of regional or local rainfall events using low-impact development (LID) and green infrastructure.

Assessment The research team engaged an experienced civil engineer who has successfully delivered LEEDv4 work in Indianapolis. Bioswale mix designs were derived from a recent LEEDv4 project (Fig. SSc4-A). Rain garden detailing was derived from recent work as well (Fig. SSc4-B).

Use daily rainfall data and the methodology in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act to determine the 95th percentile amount.

Through analysis, the research team determined that the project would only be eligible for Option 1 under this credit. Path 3 of Option 1 would not apply. The team considered Paths 1 and 2 of Option 1. Through the authors’ analysis, it was determined that the 98th percentile was not economically feasible, however the 95th percentile could be achieved through a strategic arrangement of bioswales along the site.

OR Path 2. 98th percentile (3 points) Achieve Path 1 but for the 98th percentile of regional or local rainfall events, using LID and green infrastructure.

Item 017: Bioswales to Replace Irrigated Turf This item entails excavation for the bioswales, hauling of excess materials, backfill (underdrain, geotextile, no. 8 stone, and soil mixtures), and plantings. This item also entails backing-out currently designed turf landscaping and irrigation.

OR Path 3. Zero lot line projects only – 85th Percentile (3 points) The following requirement applies to zero lot line projects in urban areas with a minimum density of 1.5 FAR. In a manner best replicating natural site hydrology processes, manage on site the runoff from the developed site for the 85th percentile of regional or local rainfall events, using LID and green infrastructure.

Hard Costs There would be hard costs associated with establishing the bioswales in lieu of irrigated turf grass.

Additional soft costs: $0

Option 2. Natural land cover conditions (3 points) Manage on site the annual increase in runoff volume from the natural land cover condition to the postdeveloped condition.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional hard costs: $102,660 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Projects that are part of a multitenant complex only The credit requirements may be met using a coordinated approach affecting the defined project

Figure SSc4-A: Bioswale mixes on a recent LEEDv4 project in Indianapolis, Indiana, that was shown to effectively manage site runoff.

Figure SSc4-B: Rain Garden Detail.

LEEDv4 BD+C - SUSTAINABLE SITES: CREDIT 5

SSc5: HEAT ISLAND REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 (REGIONAL PRIORITY AT 1 POINT) Intent To minimize effects on microclimates and human and wildlife habitats by reducing heat islands.

Use roofing materials that have an SRI equal to or greater than the values in Table 1. Meet the threeyear aged SRI value. If three-year aged value information is not available, use materials that meet the initial SRI value.

Requirements Choose one of the following options:

Table SSc5-A: Minimum solar reflectance index value, by roof slope Slope Initial SRI OR 3-year aged SRI Low≤ 2:12 82 64 sloped roof Steep > 2:12 39 32 slopedroof

Option 1. nonroof and roof (2 points) Meet the following criterion: (Area of Nonroof Measures / 0.5) + (Area of High-Reflectance Roof / 0.5) + (Area of Vegetated Roof / 0.75) > (Total Site Paving Area + Total Roof Area) Alternatively, an SRI and SR weighted average approach may be used to calculate compliance.

Vegetated roof Install a vegetated roof.

Use any combination of the following strategies.

Nonroof measures •

Use the existing plant material or install plants that provide shade over paving areas (including playgrounds) on the site within 10 years of planting. Install vegetated planters. Plants must be in place at the time of occupancy permit and cannot include artificial turf.

•

Provide shade with structures covered by energy generation systems, such as solar thermal collectors, photovoltaics, and wind turbines.

•

Provide shade with architectural devices or structures that have a three-year aged solar reflectance (SR) value of at least 0.28. If threeyear aged value information is not available, use materials with an initial SR of at least 0.33 at installation.

•

Provide shade with vegetated structures.

•

Use paving materials with a three-year aged solar reflectance (SR) value of at least 0.28. If three-year aged value information is not available, use materials with an initial SR of at least 0.33 at installation.

•

Option 2. parking under cover (1 point) Place a minimum of 75% of parking spaces under cover. Any roof used to shade or cover parking must (1) have a three-year aged SRI of at least 32 (if threeyear aged value information is not available, use materials with an initial SRI of at least 39 at installation), (2) be a vegetated roof, or (3) be covered by energy generation systems, such as solar thermal collectors, photovoltaics, and wind turbines.

Assessment In order to achieve Option 1, the project would need to incorporate paving materials with a three-year aged solar reflectance (SR) value of at least 0.28 and also uses a low-slope roofing material that have a threeyear aged SRI of at least 0.64. Nonroof measures would primarily entail installing a high-reflectance site concrete. Roof measures would require a high-reflectance roof. The project currently features a TPO roofing membrane. This membrane would need to be specified as white or otherwise surpass the SRI value threshold for the credit. This change would not come with a cost increase.

Use an open-grid pavement system (at least 50% unbound).

High-reflectance roof

The credit calculations are as follows:

this credit solution should only be pursued if the Rainwater Management credit is pursued.

High-reflectance site concrete: 18,566-sf Option C was also considered. For this option, the project would need an on-site energy generation system either on the roof or on the asphalt parking lot. The authors considered the synergies that could have been by installing a solar carport, such as the SunPower Single-Tilt Carports (ST)22 product. The column-to-column spacing for this product vary from 18’ to 36’. The study considered a four-column arrangement at 72’ in total length. The carport widths range from 20’ to 41’. The study considered 41’ widths. Therefore, each car port was determined to be 41’ wide by 72’ long.

Area of High-reflectance roof: 27,571-sf Area of vegetated roof: none Total site paving area = 18,566-sf concrete + 62,645-sf = 83,211-sf Total roof area = 27,571-sf (all white TPO) (18,566/0.5) + (27,571/0.75) + (0/0.75) > (83,211 + 27,571) (37,132) + (36,761.33) + (0) > 110,782

Ultimately, the carport solution was determined to not be economically feasible and was dropped from the pricing exercise.

(73,893.33) > 110,782 [Note: This does not comply.] These calculations suggest that the project would need to increase the compliant area by 36,888.67-sf.

Item 018: Light-Colored Site Concrete The study proceeded with the solution of supplanting 37,000-sf of asphalt paving with high-reflectance concrete.

Several potential options were potentially available to address the negative impact of the asphalt paving: A.

USGBC now calculates the shade area from tree canopy after 10 years of landscape installation rather than five years.

Use an open-grid pavement system (at least 50% unbound).

Hard Costs Although there are some savings due to the reduced size of the storm drainage system, the hard costs for this credit are quite significant as 37,000-sf of asphalt is being replaced by light-colored concrete. Additional hard costs: $195,219

C. Provide shade with structures covered by energy generation systems, such as solar thermal collectors, photovoltaics, and wind turbines.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

Options A and B were considered in tandem to supplant a certain proportion of the asphalt.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Ultimately, the authors’ analysis yielded a solution of utilizing light-colored concrete for 37,000-sf of asphalt within the main parking lot because it is more costeffective and less maintenance than an open-grid system and we can sheet runoff toward the bioswale on the south edge of the parking lot. For this reason,

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

SunPower® Single-Tilt Carport (ST) product data is available at <https://us.sunpower.com/solar-

resources/sunpower%C2%AE-single-tilt-carport-st> (accessed 24 May 2019).

LEEDv4 BD+C - SUSTAINABLE SITES: CREDIT 6

SSc6: LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To increase night sky access, improve nighttime visibility, and reduce the consequences of development for wildlife and people.

Table SSc6-B: maximum percentage of total lumens emitted above horizontal, by lighting zone MLO lighting zone Maximum allowed percentage of total luminaire lumens emitted above horizontal LZ0 0% LZ1 0% LZ2 1.5% LZ3 3% LZ4 6%

Requirements Meet uplight and light trespass requirements, using either the backlight-uplight-glare (BUG) method (Option 1) or the calculation method (Option 2). Projects may use different options for uplight and light trespass. Meet these requirements for all exterior luminaires located inside the project boundary (except those listed under “Exemptions”), based on the following: •

the photometric characteristics of each luminaire when mounted in the same orientation and tilt as specified in the project design; and

•

the lighting zone of the project property (at the time construction begins). Classify the project under one lighting zone using the lighting zones definitions provided in the Illuminating Engineering Society and International Dark Sky Association (IES/IDA) Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) User Guide.

AND Light trespass Option 1. BUG rating method Do not exceed the following luminaire backlight and glare ratings (based on the specific light source installed in the luminaire), as defined in IES TM-1511, Addendum A, based on the mounting location and distance from the lighting boundary. Table SSc6-C1: Maximum backlight ratings MLO lighting zone Luminaire LZ0 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3 LZ4 mounting Allowed backlight ratings > 2 mounting B1 B3 B4 B5 B5 heights from lighting boundary 1 to 2 mounting B1 B2 B3 B4 B4 heights from lighting boundary and properly oriented 0.5 to 1 mounting B0 B1 B2 B3 B3 height to lighting boundary and properly oriented < 0.5 mounting B0 B0 B0 B1 B2 height to lighting boundary and properly oriented > 2 mounting B1 B3 B4 B5 B5 heights from lighting boundary

Additionally, meet the internally illuminated signage requirement. Uplight Option 1. BUG rating method Do not exceed the following luminaire uplight ratings, based on the specific light source installed in the luminaire, as defined in IES TM-15-11, Addendum A. Table SSc6-A: Maximum uplight ratings for luminaires MLO Lighting Zone Luminaire Uplight Rating LZ0 U0 LZ1 U1 LZ2 U2 LZ3 U3 LZ4 U4 OR Option 2. calculation method Do not exceed the following percentages of total lumens emitted above horizontal.

Table SSc6-C2: Maximum glare ratings MLO lighting zone Luminaire LZ0 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3 mounting Allowed glare ratings Building-mounted G0 G1 G2 G3 > 2 mounting heights from any lighting boundary Building-mounted G0 G0 G1 G1 1–2 mounting heights from any lighting boundary Building-mounted G0 G0 G0 G1 0.5 to 1 mounting heights from any lighting boundary Building-mounted G0 G0 G0 G0 < 0.5 mounting heights from any lighting boundary All other G0 G1 G2 G3 luminaires

Do not exceed the following vertical illuminances at the lighting boundary (use the definition of lighting boundary in Option 1). Calculation points may be no more than 5 feet apart. Vertical illuminances must be calculated on vertical planes running parallel to the lighting boundary, with the normal to each plane oriented toward the property and perpendicular to the lighting boundary, extending from grade level to 33 feet above the height of the highest luminaire.

LZ4

Table SSc6-D: Maximum vertical illuminance at lighting boundary, by lighting zone MLO lighting zone Vertical illuminance LZ0 0.05 fc (0.5 lux) LZ1 0.05 fc (0.5 lux) LZ2 0.10 fc (1 lux) LZ3 0.20 fc (2 lux) LZ4 0.60 fc (6 lux)

AND Internally illuminated exterior signage Do not exceed a luminance of 200 cd/m2 (nits) during nighttime hours and 2000 cd/m2 (nits) during daytime hours.

The lighting boundary is located at the property lines of the property, or properties, that the LEED project occupies. The lighting boundary can be modified under the following conditions: •

Exemptions from uplight and light trespass requirements The following exterior lighting is exempt from the requirements, provided it is controlled separately from the nonexempt lighting:

When the property line abuts a public area that includes, but is not limited to, a walkway, bikeway, plaza, or parking lot, the lighting boundary may be moved to 5 feet (1.5 meters) beyond the property line.

•

specialized signal, directional, and marker lighting for transportation;

•

When the property line abuts a public street, alley, or transit corridor, the lighting boundary may be moved to the center line of that street, alley, or corridor.

•

lighting that is used solely for façade and landscape lighting in MLO lighting zones 3 and 4, and is automatically turned off from midnight until 6 a.m.;

•

When there are additional properties owned by the same entity that are contiguous to the property, or properties, that the LEED project is within and have the same or higher MLO lighting zone designation as the LEED project, the lighting boundary may be expanded to include those properties.

•

lighting for theatrical purposes for stage, film, and video performances;

•

government-mandated roadway lighting;

•

hospital emergency departments, including associated helipads;

•

lighting for the national flag in MLO lighting zones 2, 3, or 4; and

•

internally illuminated signage.

Orient all luminaires less than two mounting heights from the lighting boundary such that the backlight points toward the nearest lighting boundary line. Building-mounted luminaires with the backlight oriented toward the building are exempt from the backlight rating requirement.

OR Assessment The study determined the Option 1 would be the most cost-effective route to achieve this credit. Through this

Option 2. calculation method

option, LEEDv4 references the â&#x20AC;&#x153;BUG ratingâ&#x20AC;? (for backlight, uplight, and glare) as a prescriptive option, which makes the detailed calculations previously required by LEED for this credit unnecessary. For the BUG rating method, designers need only to determine the appropriate BUG rating and specify compliant luminaires.

Hard Costs There would be hard costs associated with changing the internally illuminated exterior signage. Additional hard costs: $5,500 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

In LEEDv4 BD+C, the interior lighting requirements have been removed from this credit, further simplifying the requirements and cost considerations.

Additional soft costs: $0

It appears that all three specified/installed luminaires comply with the BUG rating method requirements (Fig. SSc6-A). Moreover, a change in the BUG rating specification would not significantly impact costs for this project.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Item 019: Exterior Lighting / Marquee Signage Although the project compiles with the BUG rating method, the internally illuminated exterior signage would need to be changed to comply with this credit.

Figure SSc6-A: The study reviewed the product data for the site luminaires and determined that they comply with the creditâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s BUG rating method option.

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: PREREQUISITE 1

WEp1: OUTDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce outdoor water consumption.

creating new plants. The process is similar to that of the Kentucky Bluegrass. It has a high heat and drought tolerance

Requirements Reduce outdoor water use through one of the following options. Nonvegetated surfaces, such as permeable or impermeable pavement, should be excluded from landscape area calculations. Athletic fields and playgrounds (if vegetated) and food gardens may be included or excluded at the project team’s discretion.

The authors’ analysis indicated that in Indiana, seeding a native prairie/wildflower mix in lieu of turf grass would be comparable to seeding/hydroseeding a lawn in terms of up-front cost. The analysis suggested that there would not be much of an initial cost difference as much of the native Indiana prairies do not require deep topsoil profiles. One would not be pot heavy into soils either, which would typically constitute the majority of the cost. The cost analysis suggested a but a slight increase in unitary cost for native landscaping. Where the native landscape would likely separate in terms of cost is in lifecycle/maintenance expenditures. A facility would have lower water usage for irrigation, minimal maintenance, no mowing, and minimal/no treatment applications. The larger the area the more economical the native seeding becomes.

Option 1. No irrigation required Show that the landscape does not require a permanent irrigation system beyond a maximum twoyear establishment period. OR Option 2. Reduced irrigation Reduce the project’s landscape water requirement by at least 30% from the calculated baseline for the site’s peak watering month. Reductions must be achieved through plant species selection and irrigation system efficiency, as calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense Water Budget Tool.

In short, if turf grass and native prairie are similar in terms of initial cost, initial savings would come from backing out the irrigation system. Item 020: No Permanent Irrigation The authors identified the irrigation system as a major potential deduct in initial cost relative to this prerequisite and the associated credit.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment The authors engaged multiple Landscape Architects for guidance on this prerequisite and the associated credit. Recent local project cost data suggested the following:

A “now mow” fescue seed: ~$0.55/sy

In order to assess the amount of potable water saved by eliminating the irrigation system, the authors approximated the irrigated areas using take-offs from existing project documents. The turf grass area was determined to be 52,380-sf in aggregate. The shrubbery/tree areas totaled 28,620-sf. Along with 19,000-sf of miscellaneous groundcover, the aggregate total was approximated to be 100,000-sf of irrigated outdoor space. Initial costs were based on 100,000-sf of installed area.

RTF turf seed: ~$2.00/sy Rhizomatous Tall Fescue (RTF®) is a species of turf grass that is extremely durable and dense. It creates rhizomes, which are underground stems that grow laterally through the soil to stabilize and spread the turf grass. These rhizomes stem upward to the surface while also growing new roots downward,

In accordance with LEEDv4, the EPA’s WaterSense Interactive Water Budget Tool23 was used to calculate the amount of irrigation water required by the project (Fig. WEp1-A). The authors assumed the entire 1000,000 sf area would be irrigated using a standard drip irrigation system. The turfgrass and shrub areas were assumed to have a medium water demand,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interactive Water Budget Tool.

<https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/watersense/ water_budget/application.html> (accessed 24 May 2019).

Sod: ~$6/sy Prairie seed: ~$2,500/acre

while the groundcover was assumed to have a low demand. This resulted in total water requirement of 239,447 gallons/month for the project.

Table WEp1-A: Volumetric Charge for Water Consumption, Rate Based on CCF Monthly Consumption Rate per CCF First 1,000 CCF $2.2096 Next 4,000 CCF $2.1350 Over 5,000 CCF $1.7985 CCF = Centum cubic feet (748 gallons)

Hard Costs The hard costs considered the cost increase of switching turf grass to prairie as well as the savings of eliminating the irrigation system.

Table WEp1-B: Volumetric Charge for Water Consumption, Rate Based on Mgal Monthly Consumption Rate per Mgal. First 750 Mgal. $2.9461 Next 3,000 Mgal. $2.8466 Over 3,750 Mgal. $2.3980 Mgal. = 1,000 gallons

Additional hard costs: ($114,295) Soft Costs In order to establish the native seeding, the first 24months of outdoor water use savings was omitted. This is considered a soft cost for the study. Additional soft costs: $16,930

Table WEp1-C: Calculated Outdoor Water Use Reduction vs Baseline Case Annual Annual Cost Gallons Saved Savings LEED Design 2,873.4 Mgal. $8,465 Case

Operations and Maintenance The reduction in outdoor water use has a direct impact on the operational cost of the facility. The authors consulted the published Commercial Metered Water Service rate schedule published by Citizens Energy Group, the local water utility. According to their rates, as accessed on May 19, 2019, each customer shall pay a monthly Volumetric Charge based on the amount consumed, as follows:

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $6,313

Figure WEp1-A: Snapshot from the EPA WaterSense Interactive Water Budget Tool as applied for this study.

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: PREREQUISITE 2

WEp2: INDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce indoor water consumption.

Appliance and process water use Install appliances, equipment, and processes within the project scope that meet the requirements listed in the tables below.

Requirements Building Water Use For the fixtures and fittings listed in Table 1, as applicable to the project scope, reduce aggregate water consumption by 20% from the baseline. Base calculations on the volumes and flow rates shown in Table 1.

Table 2. Standards for appliances Appliance Requirement Residential clothes ENERGY STAR or washers performance equivalent Commercial clothes ENERGY STAR or washers performance equivalent Residential ENERGY STAR or dishwashers (standard performance equivalent and compact) Prerinse spray valves â&#x2030;¤ 1.3 gpm (4.9 lpm) Ice machine ENERGY STAR or performance equivalent and use either aircooled or closed-loop cooling, such as chilled or condenser water system gpm = gallons per minute lpm = liters per minute

All newly installed toilets, urinals, private lavatory faucets, and showerheads that are eligible for labeling must be WaterSense labeled (or a local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.). Table 1. Baseline water consumption of fixtures and fittings Commercial Current Current Fixtures, Baseline (IP Baseline (SI Fittings, and Units) units) Appliances Water closets 1.6 gallons per 6 liters per (toilets)* flush (gpf) flush (lpf) Urinal* 1.0 (gpf) 3.8 lpf Public lavatory 0.5 gpm at 60 1.9 lpm at 415 (restroom) psi all others kPa, all others faucet except private except private applications applications Private 2.2 gpm at 60 8.3 lpm at 415 lavatory psi kPa faucet* Kitchen faucet 2.2 gpm at 60 8.3 lpm at 415 (excluding psi kPa faucets used exclusively for filling operations) Showerhead* 2.5 gpm at 80 9.5 lpm at 550 psi per shower kPa per stall shower stall * WaterSense label available for this product type gpf = gallons per flush gpm = gallons per minute psi = pounds per square inch lpf = liters per flush lpm = liters per minute kPa = kilopascals

Table 3. Standards for processes Process Requirement Heat rejection and No once-through cooling cooling with potable water for any equipment or appliances that reject heat Cooling towers and Equip with: evaporative condensers - makeup water meters - conductivity controllers and overflow alarms - efficient drift eliminators that reduce drift to maximum of 0.002% of recirculated water volume for counterflow towers and 0.005% of recirculated water flow for cross-flow towers Credit language ÂŠ U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. 49

Assessment In order to meet the prerequisite, a minimum of 20% savings must be demonstrated.

Most categorical kitchen faucets were reduced from 2.2 to 1.8-gpm.

The calculation is performed using a calculator developed by USGBC. In addition, the project must select WaterSense labeled fixtures for any fixture type that is eligible for the WaterSense label (in accordance with the prerequisite’s language). The project must also meet prescriptive requirements for any appliances and process water equipment, including clothes washers, dishwashers, pre-rinse spray valves, ice machines, heat rejection and cooling, cooling towers, and evaporative condensers as they apply to the project. Regarding this latter criterion, only the ice machine (required to be ENERGY STAR) and prerinse spray values (< 1.3gpm) would apply – both at zero cost increase in this particular project.

Showerheads were reduced from 2.5 to 1.5-gpm. In summary, item 021 entails: • Urinals to be replaced with: Zurn Z5755-U OmniFlo Top Spud Urinal 0.125 gpf.

Plumbing As-Built Case: As-Built Condition The authors pulled cutsheets of specified and installed indoor fixtures. Then, the authors accessed and completed the LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator and determined the following for the “as-built” design case 1 condition:

•

Restroom lavatories: Kohler Triton 0.5-gpm commercial bathroom sink faucet with pop-up drain and wristblade lever handles.

•

Showerheads changed to High Sierra Showerheads Model # FCS-100-CH-1.55 Classic Plus 1-Spray 1 in. 1.5-gmp Low Flow Fixed Shower Head.

•

Toilet flushometer valves to be replaced with Sloan Royal 111 manual flushometer 1.28-gpf.

Annual design (Plumbing Design Case 1) water consumption: 1,772,153 gallons/year Percent water use reduction: 22.7% This complies with the prerequisite requirements.

Annual baseline water consumption: 2,293,050 gallons/year

Hard Costs The hard costs are associated with the plumbing design case 1.

Annual design (As-Built Case) water consumption: 2,908,650 gallons/year

Additional hard costs: $8,635 Percent water use reduction: -26.9% The project is essentially built to Indiana code minimum in terms of plumbing fixtures and fittings. The performance threshold is far below the LEED minimum.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

Item 021 – Plumbing Design Case 1: Commercial toilets, or flushometer-valve toilets, are typically found in commercial, institutional, or industrial restrooms in such places as airports, theaters, stadiums, schools, and office buildings. These types of toilets have two main components— the toilet bowl and the flushometer valve. For the proposed design case 2, the authors sought highefficiency 1.28-gpf flushometer valves. WaterSense labeled flushometer-valve toilets, whether single- or dual-flush, use no more than 1.28-gpf, which is a 20% savings over the federal standard of 1.6-gpf.

Operations and Maintenance The reduction in indoor water use will have a direct impact on the operational cost of the facility. The authors consulted the published Commercial Metered Water Service rate schedule published by Citizens Energy Group, the local water utility. According to their rates, as accessed on May 19, 2019, each customer shall pay a monthly Volumetric Charge based on the amount consumed, as follows: Table WEp2-A: Volumetric Charge for Water Consumption, Rate Based on CCF Monthly Consumption Rate per CCF First 1,000 CCF $2.2096 Next 4,000 CCF $2.1350 Over 5,000 CCF $1.7985 CCF = Centum cubic feet (748 gallons)

The authors realize that many clients may not desire waterless urinals and/or composting toilets. Therefore, ultra-efficient 0.125-gpf uninals were used for design case 2 in lieu of waterless uninals. For the public lavatories, the authors specified 0.5gpm faucets.

Table WEp2-B: Volumetric Charge for Water Consumption, Rate Based on Mgal Monthly Consumption Rate per Mgal. First 750 Mgal. $2.9461 Next 3,000 Mgal. $2.8466 Over 3,750 Mgal. $2.3980 Mgal. = 1,000 gallons

Table WEp2-C: Calculated Outdoor Water Use Reduction vs As-Built Case Annual Annual Cost Gallons Saved Savings Plumbing 1,136,497 $3,310 Design Case 1 Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $3,310

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: PREREQUISITE 3

WEp3: BUILDING-LEVEL METERING POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To support water management and identify opportunities for additional water savings by tracking water consumption.

Item 023: Building-Level Water Meter The existing project has one municipal water source. The water line comes in at the northwest corner of the building and it already metered; however, the installed meter would require manual readings. While such a meter would technically comply with this LEED prerequisite, as a practical operations matter – especially considering the high likelihood of submetering, a BMS, and the potential for performance-based LEED recertification in the future – the current meter would be swapped out for a meter capable of automated recording of daily information for monthly and annual summaries.

Requirements Install permanent water meters that measure the total potable water use for the building and associated grounds. Meter data must be compiled into monthly and annual summaries; meter readings can be manual or automated. Commit to sharing with USGBC the resulting wholeproject water usage data for a five-year period beginning on the date the project accepts LEED certification or typical occupancy, whichever comes first.

Hard Costs There would be hard costs associated with changing the internally illuminated exterior signage.

This commitment must carry forward for five years or until the building changes ownership or lessee.

Additional hard costs: $1,650 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Additional soft costs: $0 Assessment In accordance with LEED, a building-level water meter must be installed. Meter data must be compiled into monthly and annual summaries. This may entail an appropriate building management system (BMS) solution. A BMS would also assist with energy data management. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that a BMS would be installed as part of the LEED certification strategy.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: CREDIT 1

WEc1: OUTDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To reduce outdoor water consumption.

Table WEc1-A: Points for reducing irrigation water Percentage reduction from baseline Points 50% 1 100% 2

Assessment Please refer to WEp1: Outdoor Water Use Reduction.

Option 1. No irrigation required (2 points) Show that the landscape does not require a permanent irrigation system beyond a maximum twoyear establishment period.

Item 024: No Permanent Irrigation This credit is directly associated with the prerequisite. The most effective strategy for this project is to have no permanent irrigation system.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

Option 2. Reduced irrigation (1-2 points) Reduce the project’s landscape water requirement (LWR) by at least 50% from the calculated baseline for the site’s peak watering month. Reductions must first be achieved through plant species selection and irrigation system efficiency as calculated in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense Water Budget Tool.

Additional soft costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional reductions beyond 30% may be achieved using any combination of efficiency, alternative water sources, and smart scheduling technologies.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: CREDIT 2

WEc2: INDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 6 Intent To reduce indoor water consumption.

operations staff. The composting toilets on Levels 2 and 3.

Requirements Further reduce fixture and fitting water use from the calculated baseline in WE Prerequisite Indoor Water Use Reduction. Additional potable water savings can be earned above the prerequisite level using alternative water sources. Include fixtures and fittings necessary to meet the needs of the occupants. Some of these fittings and fixtures may be outside the project boundary (for New Construction). Points are awarded according to Table 1.

In summary, item 022 amends item 021 with the following:

Table 1. Points for reducing water use Percentage reduction Points 25% 1 30% 2 35% 3 40% 4 45% 5 50% 6

Annual baseline water consumption: 2,293,050 gallons/year

Percent water use reduction: 51.4% These changes collectively result in the performance we would need to surpass a 50% reduction in indoor water use.

•

Toilet flushometer valves to be replaced with Sloan Royal 111 manual flushometer 1.28 gpf on Level 1 only.

•

Levels 2 and 3 toilets changed to composting toilet system: Phoenix 4-200 (16 installs).

Annual design (As-Built Case) water consumption: 2,908,650 gallons/year Annual design (Plumbing Design Case 2) water consumption: 1,113,843 gallons/year

Assessment Please refer to WEp2: Indoor Water Use Reduction.

Hard Costs Hard costs would be associated with the cost differential in purchasing and installing the composting toilets in lieu of conventional commercial toilets.

Item 022 / Item 025 – Plumbing Design Case 2: Indoor Plumbing Package with Composting Toilets Item 025 references items 021 and 022, which were developed as a two-part solution to achieve the project’s indoor water use reduction goals. Item 021 will achieve the WEp2 prerequisite 20% indoor water use reduction. Item 022 will need to be applied to this credit in order to achieve a 50% reduction or greater.

Additional hard costs: $6,600 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

In order to realize a 50% indoor water use reduction, composting toilets were determined to be necessary. We are recommending a trusted brand, Phoenix by Advanced Composting Systems, LLC24, which was recently used on the Bullitt Center in Seattle. The units are required to be installed below the toilet fixture; therefore, the units cannot be installed on Level 1 and some office space will need to be allocated on Levels 1 and 2 for the units above. This will require considerable maintenance by the

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There would be unique operational and maintenance considerations associated with the composting toilets. However, there were no identifiable unique cost impacts directly associated with the composting toilets. The reduction in indoor water use will have a direct impact on the operational cost of the facility. The authors consulted the published Commercial

Advanced Composting Systems’ Phoenix Composting Toilet product data is available at

<https://www.compostingtoilet.com/> (accessed 24 May 2019).

Metered Water Service rate schedule published by Citizens Energy Group, the local water utility. According to their rates, as accessed on May 19, 2019, each customer shall pay a monthly Volumetric Charge based on the amount consumed, as follows:

Table WEp2-C: Calculated Outdoor Water Use Reduction vs As-Built Case Annual Annual Cost Gallons Saved Savings Plumbing 1,794,807 $5,184 Design Case 2

Table WEp2-A: Volumetric Charge for Water Consumption, Rate Based on CCF Monthly Consumption Rate per CCF First 1,000 CCF $2.2096 Next 4,000 CCF $2.1350 Over 5,000 CCF $1.7985 CCF = Centum cubic feet (748 gallons)

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $5,184 (This figure includes the savings from the associated prerequisite.)

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: CREDIT 3

WEc3: COOLING TOWER WATER USE [ACP WEpc94: NO COOLING TOWER] POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To increase water efficiency, eliminating the need for a cooling tower.

Assessment The project does not feature cooling towers. For this reason, the project is not eligible to pursue the Cooling Tower Water Use credit. However, there is an alternative compliance path (ACP) via Pilot Credit 94: No Cooling Tower25.

Requirements Note: This pilot credit is an alternative compliance path to the LEED v4 BD+C credit (WEc3) Cooling Tower Water Use for the maximum number of points under the credit.

The design team consulted Trane, the manufacturer of the RTUs installed on the existing project. They confirmed that the RTUs complied with the criteria of the pilot credit.

Projects without Cooling Towers or Evaporative Condensers Projects may earn full credit if all conditions are met: •

the baseline system designated for the building using ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G Table G3.1.1 includes a cooling tower (systems 7 & 8)

•

the project design case does not include a cooling tower

•

the design case mechanical system does not use the latent heat of the evaporative cooling of water.

•

Item 026: Specify Compliant VAV DX Rooftop Units The as-built HVAC system uses two (2) packaged variable air volume (VAV) direct expansion (DX) cooling rooftop units (RTUs). The installed Trane units are rated for 39,000 CFM and contain enthalpy economizers. As such, they are eligible for this credit's alternative compliance path (ACP). Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

the project does not receive any cooling from a District cooling system

All other system types are ineligible for credit.

Additional soft costs: $0

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

U.S. Green Building Council. LEED BD+C: New Construction - LEED v4: No Cooling Tower. <https://www.usgbc.org/node/5586086> (accessed 25 May 2019).

WEpc94 was posted as eligible for LEEDv4 BD+C projects as of the access date. ACPs and other pilot credits are always subject to change by USGBC.

LEEDv4 BD+C - WATER EFFICIENCY: CREDIT 4

WEc4: WATER METERING POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To support water management and identify opportunities for additional water savings by tracking water consumption.

Assessment This study assessed the value of various submetering opportunities. If not for the outdoor water use reduction strategy, which calls for no permanentlyinstalled irrigation, irrigation would be a valuable subsystem to meter. Ultimately, the authors arrived at the following subsystems to meter:

Requirements Install permanent water meters for two or more of the following water subsystems, as applicable to the project: •

•

Indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings. Meter water systems serving at least 80% of the indoor fixtures and fitting described in WE Prerequisite Indoor Water Use Reduction, either directly or by deducting all other measured water use from the measured total water consumption of the building and grounds.

•

Domestic hot water. Meter water use of at least 80% of the installed domestic hot water heating capacity (including both tanks and on-demand heaters).

•

Subsystem 1: Domestic hot water. The project needs to meter water use of at least 80% of the installed domestic hot water heating capacity (including both tanks and on-demand heaters). There are three (3) 50-gallon water heaters in the building - one on each floor. These should be collectively submetered through a single metering device.

Irrigation. Meter water systems serving at least 80% of the irrigated landscaped area. Calculate the percentage of irrigated landscape area served as the total metered irrigated landscape area divided by the total irrigated landscape area. Landscape areas fully covered with xeriscaping or native vegetation that requires no routine irrigation may be excluded from the calculation.

Subsystem 2: Indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings. The project needs to meter water systems serving at least 80% of the indoor fixtures and fitting described in WE Prerequisite Indoor Water Use Reduction, either directly or by deducting all other measured water use from the measured total water consumption of the building and grounds. Since we have other sources of water use beyond this source and DHW, this source must be collectively submetered by a single meter. Item 027: Submetering Submetering of DHW and indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings: Submeter domestic hot water. This should be one meter. Submeter indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings. This should be one meter. Tie these points to the BMS.

Boiler with aggregate projected annual water use of 100,000 gallons (378 500 liters) or more, or boiler of more than 500,000 BtuH (150 kW). A single makeup meter may record flows for multiple boilers.

Hard Costs There are costs associated with the additional metering for the project. Each meter and its BMS control point will cost approximately $3,300 apiece.

Reclaimed water. Meter reclaimed water, regardless of rate. A reclaimed water system with a makeup water connection must also be metered so that the true reclaimed water component can be determined.

Additional hard costs: $6,600 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Other process water. Meter at least 80% of expected daily water consumption for process end uses, such as humidification systems, dishwashers, clothes washers, pools, and other subsystems using process water.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: PREREQUISITE 1

EAp1: FUNDAMENTAL COMMISSIONING AND VERIFICATION POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To support the design, construction, and eventual operation of a project that meets the owner’s project requirements for energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability.

The review of the exterior enclosure design may be performed by a qualified member of the design or construction team (or an employee of that firm) who is not directly responsible for design of the building envelope.

Requirements Commissioning Process Scope Complete the following commissioning (Cx) process activities for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and renewable energy systems and assemblies, in accordance with ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005 and ASHRAE Guideline 1.1–2007 for HVAC&R Systems, as they relate to energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability.

Commissioning Authority By the end of the design development phase, engage a commissioning authority with the following qualifications.

Requirements for exterior enclosures are limited to inclusion in the owner’s project requirements (OPR) and basis of design (BOD), as well as the review of the OPR, BOD and project design. NIBS Guideline 32012 for Exterior Enclosures provides additional guidance. •

Develop the OPR.

•

Develop a BOD

•

The CxA must have documented commissioning process experience on at least two building projects with a similar scope of work. The experience must extend from early design phase through at least 10 months of occupancy;

•

The CxA may be a qualified employee of the owner, an independent consultant, or an employee of the design or construction firm who is not part of the project’s design or construction team, or a disinterested subcontractor of the design or construction team. For projects smaller than 20,000 square feet (1 860 square meters), the CxA may be a qualified member of the design or construction team. In all cases, the CxA must report his or her findings directly to the owner.

The commissioning authority (CxA) must do the following: •

Review the OPR, BOD, and project design.

•

Develop and implement a Cx plan.

•

Confirm incorporation of Cx requirements into the construction documents.

•

Develop construction checklists.

•

Develop a system test procedure.

•

Verify system test execution.

•

Maintain an issues and benefits log throughout the Cx process.

•

Prepare a final Cx process report.

•

Document all findings and recommendations and report directly to the owner throughout the process.

Project teams that intend to pursue EA Credit Enhanced Commissioning should note a difference in the CxA qualifications: for the credit, the CxA may not be an employee of the design or construction firm nor a subcontractor to the construction firm. Current Facilities Requirements and Operations and Maintenance Plan Prepare and maintain a current facilities requirements and operations and maintenance plan that contains the information necessary to operate the building efficiently. The plan must include the following:

•

a sequence of operations for the building;

•

the building occupancy schedule;

•

equipment run-time schedules;

•

setpoints for all HVAC equipment;

•

set lighting levels throughout the building;

•

minimum outside air requirements;

•

any changes in schedules or setpoints for different seasons, days of the week, and times of day;

•

a systems narrative describing the mechanical and electrical systems and equipment;

•

a preventive maintenance plan for building equipment described in the systems narrative; and

•

a commissioning program that includes periodic commissioning requirements, ongoing commissioning tasks, and continuous tasks for critical facilities.

Cx lies in its power to verify that those goals and objectives are met and that building systems perform as intended. Item 028: Fundamental Commissioning The project did not undergo a commissioning process and for LEED certification, the defined “fundamental” commissioning scope would need to be contracted and executed. While a variety of factors will dictate the precise scope and service fee, the authors consulted multiple Indianapolis-based commissioning authorities (CxA) with LEEDv4 experience and arrived at a reasonable figure for the purposes of this study. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs Soft costs associated with fundamental commissioning will be incurred for this prerequisite.

Additional soft costs: $70,000 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Assessment The commissioning (Cx) process is an integrated series of activities intended to better ensure that a project meets both the design intent and the Owner’s operational requirements. An Owner’s goals and objectives should drive the project team. The value of

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: PREREQUISITE 2

EAp2: MINIMUM ENERGY PERFORMANCE POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce the environmental and economic harms of excessive energy use by achieving a minimum level of energy efficiency for the building and its systems.

(This option would have precluded the project from pursuing more than five (5) additional points for optimized energy performance under EAc2. Therefore, this option was not considered for this study and is not defined here. Please see the LEED Reference Guide for information regarding this compliance option.)

Requirements Option 1. Whole-building energy simulation Demonstrate an improvement of 5% for new construction, 3% for major renovations, or 2% for core and shell projects in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline building performance rating. Calculate the baseline building performance according to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G, with errata, using a simulation model.

OR Option 3. Prescriptive compliance: Advanced BuildingsTM Core PerformanceTM Guide (This option would have precluded the project from pursuing more than five (5) additional points for optimized energy performance under EAc2. Therefore, this option was not considered for this study and is not defined here. Please see the LEED Reference Guide for information regarding this compliance option.)

Projects must meet the minimum percentage savings before taking credit for renewable energy systems. The proposed design must meet the following criteria: •

compliance with the mandatory provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, with errata;

•

inclusion of all energy consumption and costs within and associated with the building project; and

•

comparison against a baseline building that complies with Standard 90.1–2010, Appendix G, with errata.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment This prerequisite was considered in tandem with the associated EA Credit 2: Optimize Energy Performance. Please see the assessment offered under that credit for information regarding this prerequisite. Please refer to EA Credit 2: Optimize Energy Performance for a summary of the energy efficiency measures considered for this study.

Document the energy modeling input assumptions for unregulated loads. Unregulated loads should be modeled accurately to reflect the actual expected energy consumption of the building.

Hard Costs Please refer to EA Credit 2: Optimize Energy Performance for a summary of the hard costs directly associated with this prerequisite under the LEED certification strategy.

If unregulated loads are not identical for both the baseline and the proposed building performance rating, and the simulation program cannot accurately model the savings, follow the exceptional calculation method (ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010, G2.5). Alternatively, use the COMNET Modeling Guidelines and Procedures to document measures that reduce unregulated loads.

Soft Costs Please refer to EA Credit 2: Optimize Energy Performance for a summary of the soft costs directly associated with this prerequisite under the LEED certification strategy. Operations and Maintenance Please refer to EA Credit 2: Optimize Energy Performance for a summary of the operations and maintenance costs directly associated with this prerequisite under the LEED certification strategy.

OR Option 2. Prescriptive compliance: ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Guide

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: PREREQUISITE 3

EAp3: BUILDING-LEVEL METERING POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To support energy management and identify opportunities for additional energy savings by tracking building-level energy use.

Assessment This prerequisite calls for installing building-level energy meters, or submeters that can be aggregated to provide building-level data representing total building energy consumption.

Requirements Install new or use existing building-level energy meters, or submeters that can be aggregated to provide building-level data representing total building energy consumption (electricity, natural gas, chilled water, steam, fuel oil, propane, biomass, etc). Utilityowned meters capable of aggregating building-level resource use are acceptable.

Based on the recorded project information, the existing building features a building-level meter and would quality for this prerequisite. Hard Costs This is a zero-cost item as the existing project already complies.

Commit to sharing with USGBC the resulting energy consumption data and electrical demand data (if metered) for a five-year period beginning on the date the project accepts LEED certification or typical occupancy, whichever comes first. At a minimum, energy consumption must be tracked at one-month intervals.

Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

This commitment must carry forward for five years or until the building changes ownership or lessee.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: PREREQUISITE 4

EAp4: FUNDAMENTAL REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce stratospheric ozone depletion.

Assessment This prerequisite was considered in tandem with the associated EA Credit 6: Enhanced Refrigerant Management. Please see the assessment offered under that credit for information regarding this prerequisite.

Requirements Do not use chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-based refrigerants in new heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems. When reusing existing HVAC&R equipment, complete a comprehensive CFC phase-out conversion before project completion. Phase-out plans extending beyond the project completion date will be considered on their merits.

Hard Costs Please refer to EA Credit 6: Enhanced Refrigerant Management for a summary of the hard costs directly associated with this prerequisite. Soft Costs Please refer to EA Credit 6: Enhanced Refrigerant Management for a summary of the soft costs directly associated with this prerequisite.

Existing small HVAC&R units (defined as containing less than 0.5 pound (225 grams) of refrigerant) and other equipment, such as standard refrigerators, small water coolers, and any other equipment that contains less than 0.5 pound (225 grams) of refrigerant, are exempt.

Operations and Maintenance Please refer to EA Credit 6: Enhanced Refrigerant Management for a summary of the operations and maintenance costs directly associated with this prerequisite.

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 1

EAc1: ENHANCED COMMISSIONING POINTS POSSIBLE: 6 Intent To further support the design, construction, and eventual operation of a project that meets the owner’s project requirements for energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability.

•

Review building operations 10 months after substantial completion.

•

Develop an on-going commissioning plan.

Include all enhanced commissioning tasks in the OPR and BOD.

Requirements Implement, or have in place a contract to implement, the following commissioning process activities in addition to those required under EA Prerequisite Fundamental Commissioning and Verification.

Commissioning authority

Path 2: Enhanced and monitoring-based commissioning (4 points) Achieve Path 1.

•

AND

•

Develop monitoring-based procedures and identify points to be measured and evaluated to assess performance of energy- and water-consuming systems.

The CxA may be a qualified employee of the owner, an independent consultant, or a disinterested subcontractor of the design team.

Include the procedures and measurement points in the commissioning plan. Address the following:

Option 1. Enhanced systems commissioning (3-4 points) Path 1: Enhanced commissioning (3 points) Complete the following commissioning process (CxP) activities for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and renewable energy systems and assemblies in accordance with ASHRAE Guideline 0–2005 and ASHRAE Guideline 1.1–2007 for HVAC&R systems, as they relate to energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability.

•

roles and responsibilities;

•

measurement requirements (meters, points, metering systems, data access);

•

the points to be tracked, with frequency and duration for trend monitoring;

•

the limits of acceptable values for tracked points and metered values (where appropriate, predictive algorithms may be used to compare ideal values with actual values);

•

the elements used to evaluate performance, including conflict between systems, out-ofsequence operation of systems components, and energy and water usage profiles;

The commissioning authority must do the following: •

Review contractor submittals.

•

Verify inclusion of systems manual requirements in construction documents.

•

Verify inclusion of operator and occupant training requirements in construction documents.

•

an action plan for identifying and correcting operational errors and deficiencies;

•

Verify systems manual updates and delivery.

•

training to prevent errors;

•

Verify operator and occupant training delivery and effectiveness.

•

planning for repairs needed to maintain performance; and the frequency of analyses in the first year of occupancy (at least quarterly).

• •

• Verify seasonal testing.

Update the systems manual with any modifications or new settings, and give the reason for any modifications from the original design.

Assessment The authors of this study assessed the full range of commissioning services offered by this credit.

AND/OR

Item 040: Enhanced Commissioning + Item 041: Monitoring-Based Commissioning In consultation with multiple commissioning authorities on the associated soft costs for enhanced and monitoring-based commissioning, the authors arrived at itemized soft costs figures.

Option 2. Envelope commissioning (2 points) Fulfill the requirements in EA Prerequisite Fundamental Commissioning and Verification as they apply to the building’s thermal envelope in addition to mechanical and electrical systems and assemblies.

Please note that when item 040 was engaged as part of a LEED certification strategy for this study, item 041 was included. However, item 042 was considered separately.

Complete the following commissioning process (CxP) activities for the building’s thermal envelope in accordance with ASHRAE Guideline 0–2005 and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Guideline 3–2012, Exterior Enclosure Technical Requirements for the Commissioning Process, as they relate to energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability.

Item 042: Building Enclosure Commissioning (BECx) The authors worked with multiple commissioning authorities to determine an appropriate fee for BECx on this project. Please note that as with all commissioning service fees, particular aspects of the scope, project location, project complexity and other factors can result in varying BECx fees.

Commissioning authority must complete the following: •

Review contractor submittals.

•

Verify inclusion of systems manual requirements in construction documents.

•

Verify inclusion of operator and occupant training requirements in construction documents. Verify systems manual updates and delivery.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

• •

Verify operator and occupant training delivery and effectiveness.

•

Verify seasonal testing.

•

Review building operations 10 months after substantial completion.

•

Develop an on-going commissioning plan.

Soft Costs Soft costs associated with enhanced and monitoringbased Cx as well as BECx will be incurred for this prerequisite. Additional soft costs: $6,000 for enhanced + monitoring-based Cx; $39,000 for BECx Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 2

EAc2: OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE POINTS POSSIBLE: 18 (REGIONAL PRIORITY AT 9 POINTS) Intent To achieve increasing levels of energy performance beyond the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental and economic harms associated with excessive energy use.

26% 29% 32% 35% 38% 42% 46% 50%

Requirements Establish an energy performance target no later than the schematic design phase. The target must be established as kBtu per square foot-year (kW per square meter-year) of source energy use.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

OR Option 2. Prescriptive compliance: ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide (1–5 points)

Choose one of the options below. Option 1. Whole-building energy simulation (1–18 points) Analyze efficiency measures during the design process and account for the results in design decision making. Use energy simulation of efficiency opportunities, past energy simulation analyses for similar buildings, or published data (e.g., Advanced Energy Design Guides) from analyses for similar buildings.

This option was not considered for the study. As such, it is not defined here. Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment The authors evaluated the project’s potential for energy cost savings across a variety of project changes. The principal investigator utilized EnergyPlus, which is an open-source whole-building energy modeling (BEM) engine. Where existing project documentation did not specify, the BEM inputs entailed prescriptive minimums from ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings – which is the basis for the 2010 Indiana Energy Conservation Code (2010 InECC).

Analyze efficiency measures, focusing on load reduction and HVAC-related strategies (passive measures are acceptable) appropriate for the facility. Project potential energy savings and holistic project cost implications related to all affected systems. Project teams pursuing the Integrative Process credit must complete the basic energy analysis for that credit before conducting the energy simulation.

Ultimately, the study identified a shortlist of highimpact project changes that could enable the project to meet or surpass various performance thresholds.

Follow the criteria in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance to demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline. Points are awarded according to Table 1.

Please note that for every certification level, the energy-performance strategies required a Building Management System (BMS), which the existing project does not feature.

Table EAc2-A: Points for percentage improvement in energy performance New Construction Points 6% 1 8% 2 10% 3 12% 4 14% 5 16% 6 18% 7 20% 8 22% (Regional Priority) 9 24% 10

045 Building Management System The BMS offers the potential to implement a broader range of low-cost energy conservation measures, such as adjusting thermostat setpoints, electric lighting, and more. For this study, the project change item (045) for the BMS is associated with the Demand Response credit as the it could not be pursued without a BMS.

LEED Certified Strategy Item 034: Alternative Lighting Package with BMS Should this project have featured a BMS, the nearly 100% LED lighting package would have been redesigned and configured to achieve a lighting power density of 0.5-w/sf.

Special Notes Item 043: Optimized Energy Performance This item was logged as a reference to the collection of energy-related items 029 through 037 identified in this study. Item 032: Exterior Shading Devices In order to meet the stringent requirements for annual sunlight exposure (ASE) under the Daylight credit, the project would have required approximately 10,445linear feet of fixed exterior shading devices. These would be attached to the curtainwall system via outriggers. During the pricing exercise, it was determined that these shading devices effectively make the Daylight credit cost prohibitive in this particular case study. As such, this item is not considered in any energy-related strategy.

Item 035: Reduce Plug Loads via BMS The “smart” technologies afforded by the BMS would have enabled the project to reduce its average plug load from 1.0 to 0.8-w/sf. Item 036: Change thermostat setpoints. The thermostats (and dress code expectations) would be configured to recognize a heating setpoint of 66.2°F and cooling setpoint of 71.6°F. LEED Silver Strategy (additive) Item 033: Reduced Infiltration This item will require the engagement of building enclosure commissioning (BECx) services as part of the Enhance Commissioning credit. BECx will afford an opportunity to realize a more rigorous construction tightness. A direct hard recognized for this item, the Contractor will incur additional expenses in labor and materials to repair construction shortcomings discovered during the BECx process. The authors determined that the maximum infiltration rate in this scenario would go from 0.532-cfm/ft2 (code maximum) to at least 0.394-cfm/ft2 (the prescriptive maximum per ASHRAE 90.1-2013).

Hard Costs The hard costs for the energy-efficiency upgrades varied considerably across the LEED certification strategies. Project change items were grouped into bundles associated with each certification strategy, as defined above. The aggregate hard costs per strategy were as follows: Table EAc2-B: Additional Hard Costs per Strategy Strategy Additional Construction Costs LEED Certified $123,200 LEED Silver $147,594 LEED Gold or Platinum $649,483

LEED Gold / Platinum Strategy (additive) Item 029: Increase Roof Insulation The extruded polystyrene (XPS) roof insulation will be increased from R-20 to R-30 via 2 additional inches of XPS.

Additional hard costs: $123,200 - $649,483 Soft Costs Building Energy Model (BEM) services would be required for this credit in order to achieve deep energy cost savings.

Item 030: Increase Perimeter Slab Insulation The perimeter slab insulation will be increased from R-7.5 to R-17. This means adding two (2) more inches of rigid extruded polystyrene (XPS) insulation along the perimeter.

Additional soft costs: $20,000 Operations and Maintenance The percent reduction in energy costs as well as the annual carbon emissions from energy use was as follows for each strategy:

031: Upgrade to Thermally-Broken Curtainwall The existing project installed a Kawneer 1600 curtainwall system. For this item, the 1600 curtainwall will be upgraded to Kawneer’s thermally-broken 1600UT curtainwall system. Item 037: HVAC Electric Reheat Changed to GasFired Reheat This item requires the packaged VAV system with electric resistance reheat to be altered such that it uses gas-fired reheat.

Table EAc2-C: Percent Energy Cost Savings and Annual Carbon Emissions per Strategy Strategy Percent Annual Carbon Energy Cost Emissions Savings Vs. (kgCO2e/yr) 90.1-2010 Baseline 11% 581,116 (As-Built) 90.1-2010 N/A 484,663 Minimum LEED (6.5%) 548,267 Certified LEED (7.9%) 529,503 Silver LEED (20.1%) 444,788 Gold/Plat.*

The energy use intensity (EUI) and annual energy cost per strategy were as follows: Table EAc2-D: Energy Use Intensity and Energy Cost Savings per Strategy Energy Strategy EUI Annual Vs. (kBTU/ft2/yr) Cost Baseline Baseline 40.9 $54,654 N/A (As-Built) 90.1-2010 35.1 $49,246 ($5,408) Minimum LEED 37.1 $46,040 ($8,614) Certified LEED 36.1 $45,349 ($9,305) Silver LEED 30.7 $39,366 ($15,287) Gold/Plat.

* The LEED Gold/Platinum strategy includes a 15% reduction in energy costs. This additional savings may be added to the percent savings exhibited here in regard to this credit and the points earned.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $5,408 - $15,287

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 3

EAc3: ADVANCED ENERGY METERING POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To support energy management and identify opportunities for additional energy savings by tracking building-level and system-level energy use.

In most cases, this is likely to apply to lighting, cooling and heating loads, or air flow specifically, depending on usage. It could also apply to plug loads, process usage, or domestic hot water, depending on the building program.

Requirements Install advanced energy metering for the following: •

all whole-building energy sources used by the building; and

•

any individual energy end uses that represent 10% or more of the total annual consumption of the building.

These meters are required to be connected to a data collection network, which could be separate from the DDC (direct digital control) network but does not necessarily need to be. Whatever approach is utilized, the meters must be remotely accessible. Projects should also tie into Energy Star Portfolio Manager to track and report their data. Data from this study’s energy analysis is summarized below (Fig. EAc3-A).

The advanced energy metering must have the following characteristics. •

According to the authors’ analysis, the minimum items to be sub-metered are:

Meters must be permanently installed, record at intervals of one hour or less, and transmit data to a remote location.

•

AHU space heating and cooling.

Electricity meters must record both consumption and demand. Whole-building electricity meters should record the power factor, if appropriate.

•

Interior lighting.

•

Interior equipment (plug loads).

•

The data collection system must use a local area network, building automation system, wireless network, or comparable communication infrastructure.

•

The system must be capable of storing all meter data for at least 36 months.

•

The data must be remotely accessible.

•

All meters in the system must be capable of reporting hourly, daily, monthly, and annual energy use.

Solution A: Additional Electrical Panels per Loads One major complication with the existing project is that its 120/208V panels do not just serve one specific load. A panel may serve office plug loads as well as the fire alarm system and small water heaters. The 277/480V system includes lights, VAV-reheat, HVAC equipment, etc. With a few additional panels in the electrical rooms the design could break-up these different systems by electrical panel and then could could sub-meter the panel main. There are 18 panels in the existing building. If it is assumed that the project could be changed to breakout the panels by plug load, lighting, HVAC, plumbing, and miscellaneous (fire alarm, security system, etc.), the building would end up with roughly 36-42 panels as opposed to 18 panels as installed. When the authors and their contributors created cost opinions for such a change, it was assumed that each panel would be $5,000 for material and labor to install, plus another $1,000 per sub-meter. 18 additional panels with sub-metering would be in the ballpark of $108,000 and 24 additional panels would be approximately $144,000.

•

Assessment Building upon the related prerequisite, which requires the installation of a building-level energy meter, this credit requires addition meters for segregating energy uses. This credit requires additional metering of any system expected to represent at least 10% of the total annual consumption of the building.

Solution B: Smart Paneling Another solution would be smart paneling. Below is the hard material cost for the smart panels that include metering.

the metering can be logged. This scope of work added $7,700 to the project.

Additional material cost: $131,236 Additional labor cost: $14,400 Assume $100/hr labor, 8 hours of labor at each panel and a total of 18 panels.

Because it is anticipated to be more cost-effective, Solution A will be assumed and its approximately cost of $144,000 needs to be added to Item 044, bring its total to $151,700.

BMS connection: $18,000 Assume $1,000 per BMS point and assume 1 BMS per panel.

Hard Costs The hard costs are associated with adding additional electrical panels, additional meters, and modifications to the BMS.

Total: $163,636. Item 044: Submetering Electric Panels The authors and their contributors believe that both options would meet the requirements for this credit. The smart panel would allow Owners to look even closer at the numbers to determine why the plug load in one office would be higher than the plug load in another office. This additional information could allow a building manager to help reduce energy as the building ages.

Additional hard costs: $151,700 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

The Contractor has some additional work to wire-up and there is the need to connect to the BMS so that

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 4

EAc4: DEMAND RESPONSE POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To increase participation in demand response technologies and programs that make energy generation and distribution systems more efficient, increase grid reliability, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Requirements Design building and equipment for participation in demand response programs through load shedding or shifting. On-site electricity generation does not meet the intent of this credit. Case 1. Demand response program available (2 points) Participate in an existing demand response (DR) program and complete the following activities. •

•

Include the DR processes in the scope of work for the commissioning authority, including participation in at least one full test of the DR plan.

•

Include the DR processes in the scope of work for the commissioning authority, including participation in at least one full test of the DR plan.

•

Contact local utility representatives to discuss participation in future DR programs.

Assessment Unfortunately, at the time of this writing the local utility does not offer a Demand Response program. However, this credit offers an opportunity to strike synergies across other credits in the rating system. A properly specified building management system (BMS) along with some systems modifications could meet the requirements of this credit. A BMS would also afford opportunities for managing certain building loads and automating the recording of energy and water use data, among other offerings.

Enroll in a minimum one-year DR participation amount contractual commitment with a qualified DR program provider, with the intention of multiyear renewal, for at least 10% of the estimated peak electricity demand. Peak demand is determined under EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting the contractual commitment during a Demand Response event.

Develop a comprehensive plan for shedding at least 10% of building estimated peak electricity demand. Peak demand is determined under EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance.

Design a system with the capability for real-time, fully-automated DR based on external initiation by a DR Program Provider. Semi-automated DR may be utilized in practice.

•

045 Building Management System The BMS offers the potential to implement a broader range of low-cost energy conservation measures, such as adjusting thermostat setpoints, electric lighting, and more. Hard Costs The hard costs for this credit are associated with installing a building management system. Additional hard costs: $123,200

Case 2. Demand response program not available (1 point) Provide infrastructure to take advantage of future demand response programs or dynamic, real-time pricing programs and complete the following activities. •

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Install interval recording meters with communications and ability for the building automation system to accept an external price or control signal.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 5

EAc5: RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 3 Intent To reduce the environmental and economic harms associated with fossil fuel energy by increasing selfsupply of renewable energy.

Item 046: On-Site Photovoltaic Solar Array The principal investigator (PI) sought a photovoltaic (PV) solar array proposal from a regional vendor with whom the PI has recently worked with on another LEEDv4 BD+C project in Indianapolis. The vendor was the low bidder on this recent project and was awarded the job.

Requirements Use renewable energy systems to offset building energy costs. Calculate the percentage of renewable energy with the following equation:

For this study, the following information was determined:

% renewable energy = •

Contract Price: $137,379

(Equivalent cost of usable energy produced by the renewable energy system) /

•

System Size in watts (DC): 62,445

(Total building annual energy cost)

•

Number of solar panels: 181

Use the building’s annual energy cost, calculated in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance, if Option 1 was pursued; otherwise use the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database to estimate energy use and cost.

•

Wattage of each solar panel (DC): 345

•

Annual Energy Production: 73,391 kWh

•

Minimum Area Required: 4,706 sf

•

Install Cost per Watt DC (before Federal Tax Credit): $2.20

•

Installed Cost: $56,463 after the 30% Federal Tax Credit (FTC)

The use of solar gardens or community renewable energy systems is allowed if both of the following requirements are met. • •

The project owns the system or has signed a lease agreement for a period of at least 10 years.

This PV installation could be accommodated on the roof of the building.

The system is located with the same utility service area as the facility claiming the use.

A 15% reduction in energy cost savings was the goal for the purposes of this study. At 15%, the project could achieve exemplary performance for this credit and could potentially achieve an additional point under the Innovation category.

Credit is based on the percentage of ownership or percentage of use assigned in the lease agreement. Points are awarded according to Table 1. Table 1. Points for renewable energy Percentage renewable Points energy 1% 1 3% — 5% 2 10% 3

Hard Costs According to RegenEn Solar, who was consulted for this study, the installed cost of this 62.4-kilowatt system would be $56,463 after the 30% Federal Tax Credit. The FTC is critical to economic success of this system. Without the federal incentive, this economic payback would be untenable for most building projects. With other costs factored in by the Contractor, the final installed cost of the system was determined to be

Additional hard costs: $62,109

Assessment The authors only considered on-site photovoltaic (PV) energy systems.

Soft Costs The soft costs to the project team to incorporate a photovoltaic system would be embodied by the LEED Supplemental Service fees charged by the architect and electrical engineer. A vendor would engineer the system and submit it to the project team for approval.

The anticipated energy cost of the LEED design cases ranges from $39,366 to $46,040. This correlates to roughly an 16% - 18% reduction in energy costs on the project. Pursing this on-site PV system would change the EAc2 percent improvements as follows:

Additional soft costs: $0 (part of LEED Supplemental Services)

Strategy

Operations and Maintenance The PV system is anticipated to produce an average of 73,391 kWh/year.

LEED Certified LEED Silver LEED Gold/Plat.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as cited on May 20, 2019, the average price of electricity to commercial customers in Indiana in February 2019 was 10.32 cents per kilowatt-hour. Based on this price, the PV system could potentially save the customer $7,574 in annual energy costs.

Without Renewables 6.5% (1 pt) 7.9% (1 pt) 20.1% (8 pts)

With Renewables 22.5% (9 pts + RPC) 24.1% (10 pts + RPC) 38.7% (15 pts + RPC)

Assuming the client can take full advantage of the onsite renewable energy production, the PV system would pay for itself in 8.2 years.

This could potentially translate to $7,340 in annual energy cost savings per year, depending on utility rates, the rate at which the utility will buy-back the energy, and year-to-year climate conditions.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $7,340

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 6

EAc6: ENHANCED REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To reduce ozone depletion and support early compliance with the Montreal Protocol while minimizing direct contributions to climate change.

(0.5 to 5.0 lbs of refrigerant per ton of gross AHRI rated cooling capacity) Life: Equipment Life (10 years; default based on equipment type, unless otherwise demonstrated)

Requirements Option 1. No refrigerants or low-impact refrigerants (1 point) Do not use refrigerants, or use only refrigerants (naturally occurring or synthetic) that have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero and a global warming potential (GWP) of less than 50.

For multiple types of equipment, calculate a weighted average of all base building HVAC&R equipment, using the following formula: [ ∑ (LCGWP + LCODP x 105) x Qunit ] / Qtotal ≤ 100

OR Calculation Definitions

Option 2. Calculation of refrigerant impact (1 point) Select refrigerants that are used in heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC&R) equipment to minimize or eliminate the emission of compounds that contribute to ozone depletion and climate change. The combination of all new and existing base building and tenant HVAC&R equipment that serve the project must comply with the following formula:

Qunit = Gross AHRI rated cooling capacity of an individual HVAC or refrigeration unit (Tons) Qtotal = Total gross AHRI rated cooling capacity of all HVAC or refrigeration

LCGWP + LCODP x 105 ≤ 100

Assessment The existing project features Trane rooftop units. The authors consulted Trane directly for information on the project that could verify whether or not the units complied with EA Prerequisite 4: Fundamental Refrigerant Management or EA Credit 6: Enhance Refrigerant Management.

Calculation Definitions LCODP = [ODPr x (Lr x Life +Mr) x Rc]/Life LCGWP = [GWPr x (Lr x Life +Mr) x Rc]/Life LCODP: Lifecycle Ozone Depletion Potential (lb CFC 11/Ton-Year)

Based on the analysis that a local Trane rep ran using a total refrigerant charge of 154.8 libs of R-410a, a nominal 130-ton unit (gross 121.7-tons) would comply with both the prerequisite and the credit.

LCGWP: Lifecycle Direct Global Warming Potential (lb CO2/Ton-Year) GWPr: Global Warming Potential of Refrigerant (0 to 12,000 lb CO2/lbr)

Thus, this is a zero-cost items. The authors considered whether or not the RTUs could be downsized as a result of the energyefficiency measures being undertaken for LEED certification. The authors’ preliminary figures suggested that through envelope revisions the project could reduce its design cooling load by 6% and its design heating load by 27%. It was determined that the cooling figure were not enough to downsize the units to 120-tons (next smallest unit) but it was close.

ODPr: Ozone Depletion Potential of Refrigerant (0 to 0.2 lb CFC 11/lbr) Lr: Refrigerant Leakage Rate (2.0%) Mr: End-of-life Refrigerant Loss (10%)

In general, the installed units would cost $1,200 $1,300 per ton. So, for example, if a project team

Rc: Refrigerant Charge

could conceivably eliminate 10-tons by downsizing, the project could save roughly $12,000.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

The heating load change would be directed toward the VAV box design and downsizing the reheat coils in each box. This would reduce the main power input or boiler capacity for the building accordingly.

Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Hard Costs This is a zero-cost item as the existing project already complies.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Additional hard costs: $0

Figure EAc6-A: Screen clip from a weighted calculation analysis conducted for the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s RTUs.

LEEDv4 BD+C - ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE: CREDIT 7

EAc7: GREEN POWER AND CARBON OFFSETS POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the use of grid-source, renewable energy technologies and carbon mitigation projects.

Assessment The authors recognized this as a relatively costeffective credit and proceeded with the intent to achieve the 100% threshold for two (2) points.

Requirements Engage in a contract for qualified resources that have come online since January 1, 2005, for a minimum of five years, to be delivered at least annually. The contract must specify the provision of at least 50% or 100% of the project’s energy from green power, carbon offsets, or renewable energy certificates (RECs).

Item 048: Green Power and Carbon Offsets The authors sought a quote for green power and carbon offsets based on the expected energy use of the project after the LEED changes. The vendor is a company with whom the principal investigator has successfully worked with on multiple Indianapolisbased LEED projects. The quote was received on February 12, 2019.

Green power and RECs must be Green-e Energy certified or the equivalent. RECs can only be used to mitigate the effects of Scope 2, electricity use.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

Carbon offsets may be used to mitigate Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions on a metric ton of carbon dioxide– equivalent basis and must be Green-e Climate certified, or the equivalent.

Soft Costs Please see Tables EAc7-B and EAc7-C for a breakdown of the green power and carbon offsets quotes.

For U.S. projects, the offsets must be from greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects within the U.S.

Additional soft costs: $3,776.18 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Determine the percentage of green power or offsets based on the quantity of energy consumed, not the cost. Points are awarded according to Table 1.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Table EAc7-A: Points for energy from green power or carbon offsets Percentage of total Points energy addressed by green power, RECs and/or offsets 50% 1 100% 2 Use the project’s annual energy consumption, calculated in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance, if Option 1 was pursued; otherwise use the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database to estimate energy use. Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Table EAc7-B: Green Power Quote % Green Power MWh Over 5 Years 100% (2 points) 50% (1 point)

1,721 861

Table EAc7-C: Carbon Credit Quote % Carbon Offset Carbon Credits Over 5 Years 100% (2 points) 350 50% (1point) 175

REC Type

Price / MWh*

Total Cost

CSG CleanBuild

$1.58 $1.73

$2,719.18 $1,489.53

Carbon Credit Verification Green-e Climate Certified

Price / Tonne*

Total Cost

$3.02 $3.25

$1,057.00 $568.75

* Prices are based on market conditions at the time of the quote and subject to change on a weekly basis.

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: PREREQUISITE 1

MRp1: STORAGE AND COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce the waste that is generated by building occupants and hauled to and disposed of in landfills.

It is important to note that LEED does not require dedicated spaces specifically to satisfy this prerequisite; thus, programs can be tailored to allocate the areas needed for collection, storage, and disposal within already programmed spaces.

Requirements Provide dedicated areas accessible to waste haulers and building occupants for the collection and storage of recyclable materials for the entire building. Collection and storage areas may be separate locations. Recyclable materials must include mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals. Take appropriate measures for the safe collection, storage, and disposal of two of the following: batteries, mercury-containing lamps, and electronic waste.

Item 049: Establish a Room for Recyclables The project could feasibly dedicate approximately 100 square feet for storage direct adjacent to the shipping/receiving entry. Coupled with a dispersed recycling program and a dedicated policy which includes battery and electronic waste collection, this prerequisite could be implemented with no added cost. The battery and electronic waste collection may entail a strategic partnership with local organizations. However, there is not a necessary added hard or soft cost for this prerequisite as this would have been incorporated into the project without a substantive increase in material, labor, or coordination.

Credit language ÂŠ U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment LEED v4 has expanded provisions for collection, storage, and disposal of the five traditional waste streams (paper, plastic, metal, corrugated cardboard, and glass) to also include a minimum of two of the following three waste streams: batteries, mercurycontaining lamps, and electronic waste, to be selected at the discretion of the Owner.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Achievement of this prerequisite has impacts on the size of the support areas in the building. However, since recycling programs are extremely common, this cost does not necessarily constitute an added cost for LEED. In many instances, it would not and it is assumed to not constitute any added cost in this analysis.

Additional hard costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: PREREQUISITE 2

MRp2: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To reduce construction and demolition waste disposed of in landfills and incineration facilities by recovering, reusing, and recycling materials.

establish waste diversion goals by identifying at least five material or waste streams targeted for diversion. In addition, teams must specify the means and methods of diversion for each of the five selected materials streams.

Requirements Develop and implement a construction and demolition waste management plan: •

Establish waste diversion goals for the project by identifying at least five materials (both structural and nonstructural) targeted for diversion. approximate a percentage of the overall project waste that these materials represent.

•

Specify whether materials will be separated or commingled and describe the diversion strategies planned for the project. Describe where the materials will be taken and how the recycling facility will process the material.

Upon completion of the project, the General Contractor should provide a waste report detailing all major waste streams generated and include disposal and diversion rates. Teams pursuing the corresponding Construction and Demolition Waste Management credit should be aware of additional requirements for the final waste report. This prerequisite does not have any performance requirements in terms of the amount of waste diverted. But all teams must develop a plan and produce a final report—even if the project location does not have recycling services and/or if teams are not going to pursue the corresponding credit. This prerequisite does not necessarily constitute any added costs as Contractors frequently submit such plans. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that this prerequisite constitutes standard operating procedure and would not constitute any added cost.

Provide a final report detailing all major waste streams generated, including disposal and diversion rates. Alternative daily cover (ADC) does not qualify as material diverted from disposal. Include materials destined for ADC in the calculations as waste. Landclearing debris is not considered construction, demolition, or renovation waste that can contribute to waste diversion.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Assessment This prerequisite is about the plan, not the waste amount diverted.

Additional hard costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Item 050: Establish a Construction Waste Management Plan This prerequisite, which is new in LEED v4, requires all teams to develop and implement a construction waste management (CWM) plan. Teams must

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: CREDIT 1

MRc1: BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT REDUCTION POINTS POSSIBLE: 5 (REGIONAL PRIORITY AT 1 POINT) Intent To encourage adaptive reuse and optimize the environmental performance of products and materials.

occupancy. Up to 25% of the building surface area may be excluded from credit calculation because of deterioration or damage.

Requirements Demonstrate reduced environmental effects during initial project decision-making by reusing existing building resources or demonstrating a reduction in materials use through life-cycle assessment. Achieve one of the following options.

OR Option 3. building and material reuse (2–4 points) Reuse or salvage building materials from off site or on site as a percentage of the surface area, as listed in Table 1. Include structural elements (e.g., floors, roof decking), enclosure materials (e.g., skin, framing), and permanently installed interior elements (e.g., walls, doors, floor coverings, ceiling systems). Exclude from the calculation window assemblies and any hazardous materials that are remediated as a part of the project.

Option 1. historic building reuse (5 points) Maintain the existing building structure, envelope, and interior nonstructural elements of a historic building or contributing building in a historic district. To qualify, the building or historic district must be listed or eligible for listing in the local, state, or national register of historic places. Do not demolish any part of a historic building or contributing building in a historic district unless it is deemed structurally unsound or hazardous. For buildings listed locally, approval of any demolition must be granted by the local historic preservation review board. For buildings listed in a state register or the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.), approval must appear in a programmatic agreement with the state historic preservation office or National Park Service (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.).

Materials contributing toward this credit may not contribute toward MR Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Materials. Table 1. Points for reuse of building materials Percentage of Points completed project surface area reused 25% 2 50% 3 75% 4

Any alteration (preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation) of a historic building or a contributing building in a historic district on the project site must be done in accordance with local or national standards for rehabilitation, whichever are applicable. If building is not subject to historic review, include on the project team a preservation professional who meets U.S. federal qualifications for historic architects (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.); the preservation professional must confirm conformance to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S.).

The baseline and proposed buildings must be of comparable size, function, orientation, and operating energy performance as defined in EA Prerequisite Minimum Energy Performance. The service life of the baseline and proposed buildings must be the same and at least 60 years to fully account for maintenance and replacement. Use the same life-cycle assessment software tools and data sets to evaluate both the baseline building and the proposed building, and

Option 4. whole-building life-cycle assessment (3 points) For new construction (buildings or portions of buildings), conduct a life-cycle assessment of the project’s structure and enclosure that demonstrates a minimum of 10% reduction, compared with a baseline building, in at least three of the six impact categories listed below, one of which must be global warming potential. No impact category assessed as part of the life-cycle assessment may increase by more than 5% compared with the baseline building.

Option 2. renovation of abandoned or blighted building (5 points) Maintain at least 50%, by surface area, of the existing building structure, enclosure, and interior structural elements for buildings that meet local criteria of abandoned or are considered blight. The building must be renovated to a state of productive

report all listed impact categories. Data sets must be compliant with ISO 14044.

•

Select at least three of the following impact categories for reduction:

See Appendix G for more information on LCA baseline model inputs.

•

global warming potential (greenhouse gases), in kg CO2 e;

•

depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, in kg CFC-11;

By making the following changes to the existing building design and specifications, the authors were able to achieve the LEEDv4 LCA performance requirements.

•

acidification of land and water sources, in moles H+ or kg SO2;

•

eutrophication, in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate;

•

formation of tropospheric ozone, in kg NOx, kg O3 eq, or kg ethene; and

•

depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, in MJ.

Item 051: Fly Ash / Slag Added to Structural Concrete All cast-in-place concrete is to be changed from 0 19% fly ash to >20% fly ash and >30% slag. Item 052: Change Curtainwall Finish Curtainwall framing needs to change from anodized to powder coating. Item 053: Change from Fiberglass to Wool Insulation The unfaced fiberglass batt needs to be changed to Knauf® EcoBatt glass wool unfaced batts. The proportional improvement per each of the seven environmental impact categories disclosed by the Tally plugin are presented below (Fig. MRc1-A).

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment This project is not eligible for Option 1 or Option 2 of this credit. Option 3 is theoretically possible, but not economically feasible within the scope and budget of the project. Option 4 constitutes the more costeffective and high-impact credit achievement pathway.

While these changes may initially seem simple, in application the change to the concrete became a more complicated proposition for the project. The authors consulted an Indianapolis-based structural engineer who has contributed to many local LEED projects. The engineer clarified that their standard structural cast-in-place concrete specification currently allows up to a 50% substitution of Portland cement with 30% slag and 20% fly ash.

In pursuit of Option 4, the existing building information model (BIM) for the project was accessed and the Tally26 plug-in was applied to assess the life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the structure and building envelope in accordance with this credit.

The authors also consulted a local concrete supplier, who indicated that 30% would likely be acceptable to get the necessary 1-day strengths. With a 50% substitution they may need to increase the total cement content or go to Type III cement in order to get the high early strengths - which would have a cost impact. Not to mention, it would add more Portland cement, which is what this exercise is trying to avoid.

LCA modeling assumptions: •

Model included biogenic carbon27, in accordance with LCA modeling best practices. This is optional under LEEDv4.

•

On-site construction impacts are not included, in accordance with LEEDv4.

•

Operational energy impacts are not included, in accordance with LEEDv4.

Expected building life set to 60 years, in accordance with LEEDv4.

It would be up to the supplier whether they used more Portland cement or Type III which is more expensive. A 30% replacement is more of a sweet spot. It would not be as much of an issue on jobs where high early strength for stressing is unnecessary. So, on a post-

The Tally plugin is developed by KieranTimberlake and can be purchases at choosetally.com

biodegradation. ISO 21930:2017: Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works - Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services recommends biogenic carbon be included within the system boundary.

Biogenic carbon is the carbon transferred between nature and the technosphere as bio-based materials remove carbon during growth and emit carbon during combustion or 27

tensioned job, 30% is about the maximum one could supplant.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

If high early strength is not required, then one could specify a requirement for 30% but still allow 50%. For this study, the team assumed that the 50% replacement would be acceptable as high early strength would not necessarily be required.

Additional hard costs: $0

The LCA model did reveal an improvement in Global Warming Potential of 14.3% - the most of any environmental impact category. The carbon impact intensity of the baseline building is 24.4 kgCO2e/sf while the proposed carbon impact intensity drops to 20.9 kgCO2e/sf.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Table MRc1-A: Carbon Impacts of Construction and Operations Global Annual Warming Operational Potential from Carbon Construction Emissions (kgCO2e) (kgCO2e/yr)

The table below summarizes the total carbon impact of the existing building versus the LEED Platinum solution for the project. Please note that only the LEED Platinum is identified because this credit is only being pursued as part of the LEED Platinum strategy. Hard Costs Costs will be incurred to change the structural concrete, curtainwall, and insulation as noted. Additional hard costs: $63,384

Baseline Building

1,954,896

581,116

LEED Platinum Strategy

1,675,353

444,788

Figure MRc1-A: Reductions in environmental impacts across various categories.

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: CREDIT 2

MRc2: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION – ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATIONS POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 •

Intent To encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life-cycle impacts. To reward project teams for selecting products from manufacturers who have verified improved environmental life-cycle impacts.

AND/OR Option 2. Multi-attribute optimization (1 point) Use products that comply with one of the criteria below for 50%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project. Products will be valued as below.

Requirements Achieve one or more of the options below, for a maximum of 2 points.

•

Option 1. environmental product declaration (EPD) (1 point) Use at least 20 different permanently installed products sourced from at least five different manufacturers that meet one of the disclosure criteria below. •

Third party certified products that demonstrate impact reduction below industry average in at least three of the following categories are valued at 100% of their cost for credit achievement calculations. global warming potential (greenhouse gases), in CO2e;

Product-specific declaration. Products with a publicly available, critically reviewed life-cycle assessment conforming to ISO 14044 that have at least a cradle to gate scope are valued as one quarter (1/4) of a product for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

•

USGBC approved program – Products that comply with other USGBC approved environmental product declaration frameworks.

depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, in kg CFC-11; acidification of land and water sources, in moles H+ or kg SO2; eutrophication, in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate;

Environmental product declarations which conform to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 or ISO 21930 and have at least a cradle to gate scope.

formation of tropospheric ozone, in kg NOx, kg O3 eq, or kg ethene; and

Industry-wide (generic) EPD -- Products with third-party certification (Type III), including external verification, in which the manufacturer is explicitly recognized as a participant by the program operator are valued as one half (1/2) of a product for purposes of credit achievement calculation.

depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, in MJ. •

Product-specific Type III EPD -- Products with third-party certification (Type III), including external verification in which the manufacturer is explicitly recognized as the participant by the program operator are valued as one whole product for purposes of credit achievement calculation.

USGBC approved program -- Products that comply with other USGBC approved multiattribute frameworks.

For credit achievement calculation, products sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 100 miles of the project site are valued at 200% of their base contributing cost. Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products. Projects with significant amounts of structural and enclosure materials may exceed the

30% limit by calculating an alternative structure and enclosure limit (See Calculations under Further Explanation in the LEED Reference Guide for additional information).

11. Type III EPD: ASSA ABLOY – Trio-E Steel Stiffened Hollow Metal Door Group 12. Type III EPD: ASSA ABLOY – Norton 7500 Series Door Closer (Interior Doors)

13. Type III EPD: ASSA ABLOY – McKinney Door Hinge (Interior Doors)

Assessment In general, the authors determined that Option 1 of this credit is relatively easy to achieve with a negligible cost increase; however, Option 2 was determined to not be feasible at this point in time.

14. Type III EPD: Benjamin Moore – Ultra Spec 500 Paint 15. Type III EPD: Benjamin Moore – Natura Interior Waterborne Paint

For the purposes of this study, the authors pursued compliant products in the marketplace that would meet the project specifications.

16. Type III EPD: ASC Steel Deck – 1.5B Roof Deck

Item 054: Prioritize/Choose Products with EPDs The compliant products identified are listed below.

17. Type III EPD: GAF – EnergyGuard NH Polyiso

Type III EPD: Carpet Tile – Mohawk – Broadloom

18. Type III EPD: Sloan – Royal 111 manual flushometer 1.28 gpf

Type III EPD: Curtainwall – Kawneer 1600 System 1

19. Type III EDP: Detex Corporation – Advantex 10 Series Rim Exit Device

Type III EPD: Gypsum Board – Gypsum Association – Typical 5/8” Type X North American Gypsum Boards

20. Type III EPD: Mosa– Wall Tiles Hard Costs There is no hard cost premium associated with Option 1 of this credit. This point can be achieved through cost-effective alternative products in the marketplace.

Type III EPD: ROCKWOOL – Mineral wood insulation (CAVITYROCK)

Type III EPD: Armstrong – Axiom Trims & Transitions

Type III EPD: Armstrong – Ultima High NRC ACT

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Type III EPD: Armstrong – Prelude XL

Additional hard costs: $0

Type III EPD: Owens Corning – FOAMULAR Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) Insulation

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Type III EPD: Oregon Door – Architectural & Craftsman Series Flush Door w/ Wood Face (FSC)

Additional hard costs: $0

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

10. Type III EPD: Carlisle – TPO Membrane

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: CREDIT 3

MRc3: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION – SOURCING OF RAW MATERIALS POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To encourage the use of products and materials for which life cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life cycle impacts. To reward project teams for selecting products verified to have been extracted or sourced in a responsible manner.

AND/OR Option 2. leadership extraction practices (1 point) Use products that meet at least one of the responsible extraction criteria below for at least 25%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed building products in the project.

Requirements Option 1. raw material source and extraction reporting (1 point) Use at least 20 different permanently installed products from at least five different manufacturers that have publicly released a report from their raw material suppliers which include raw material supplier extraction locations, a commitment to long-term ecologically responsible land use, a commitment to reducing environmental harms from extraction and/or manufacturing processes, and a commitment to meeting applicable standards or programs voluntarily that address responsible sourcing criteria. •

Products sourced from manufacturers with selfdeclared reports are valued as one half (1/2) of a product for credit achievement.

•

Third-party verified corporate sustainability reports (CSR) which include environmental impacts of extraction operations and activities associated with the manufacturer’s product and the product’s supply chain, are valued as one whole product for credit achievement calculation. Acceptable CSR frameworks include the following:

•

Extended producer responsibility. Products purchased from a manufacturer (producer) that participates in an extended producer responsibility program or is directly responsible for extended producer responsibility. Products meeting extended producer responsibility criteria are valued at 50% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

•

Bio-based materials. Bio-based products must meet the Sustainable Agriculture Network’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard. Bio-based raw materials must be tested using ASTM Test Method D6866 and be legally harvested, as defined by the exporting and receiving country. Exclude hide products, such as leather and other animal skin material. Products meeting bio-based materials criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

•

Wood products. Wood products must be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or USGBCapproved equivalent. Products meeting wood products criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

•

Materials reuse. Reuse includes salvaged, refurbished, or reused products. Products meeting materials reuse criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

•

Recycled content. Recycled content is the sum of postconsumer recycled content plus one-half the preconsumer recycled content, based on cost. Products meeting recycled content criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Report Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises U.N. Global Compact: Communication of Progress ISO 26000: 2010 Guidance on Social Responsibility USGBC approved program: Other USGBC approved programs meeting the CSR criteria.

•

study. The same steel fabricator served this project studied for this report. Their operation is within 23.5 miles of the project site and is therefore eligible for the Location Valuation Factor under LEEDv4.

USGBC approved program. Other USGBC approved programs meeting leadership extraction criteria.

For credit achievement calculation, products sourced (extracted, manufactured, and purchased) within 100 miles (160 km) of the project site are valued at 200% of their base contributing cost. For credit achievement calculation, the base contributing cost of individual products compliant with multiple responsible extraction criteria is not permitted to exceed 100% its total actual cost (before regional multipliers) and double counting of single product components compliant with multiple responsible extraction criteria is not permitted and in no case is a product permitted to contribute more than 200% of its total actual cost.

Item 056: FSC Certified Wood Doors All of wood doors on the project are changed to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified. Item 057: FSC Certified Architectural Woodwork The architectural woodwork is changed to 100% FSC certified wood. Item 058: High-Recycled Carpet and Vinyl Base Select a cost-comparative option with at least 27% post-consumer and 1% pre-consumer recycled content or equivalent. Through product research this was determined to be a feasible threshold for recycled content.28

Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products. Projects with significant amounts of structural and enclosure materials may exceed the 30% limit by calculating an alternative structure and enclosure limit (See Calculations under Further Explanation in the LEED Reference Guide for additional information).

Item 059: Tenant “Acoustic Ceilings” The existing project features compliant ceiling systems/products by Armstrong. Item 060: Kawneer 1600 System 1 Curtainwall The existing project features a complaint curtainwall system by Kawneer. An Indianapolis-based installer of the Kawneer 1600 System 1 curtainwall clarified that Kawneer cannot pin-point an actual percentage of recycled content until the billet is purchased to produce the extrusions for a specific project. The percentage fluctuates from purchase to purchase and project to project. The supplier also cautioned using an anodized finish with high-recycled material due to the inconsistency of the finish when recycled material is introduced. Based on information provided by the local installer, the authors are assuming a conservative estimate that, worst-case, the 1600 curtainwall system used on this project had 25% preconsumer and 0% post-consumer recycled content.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment Option 1 was determined to not be feasible for this project and was not pursued for the study. Like the other two Building Product Disclosure & Optimization (BPDO) credits, this credit offers a point for transparency and another for optimization. Unlike the other two credits, however, the transparency point for this credit is difficult to achieve (essentially unachievable at this point in time) because the building products industry lacks a system for reporting on the raw material extraction impacts of products.

Through these six product selections, we arrive at 25% under Option 2 and achieve 1 point under this credit (Fig. MRc3-A).

However, Option 2 of this credit was pursued for this study. The optimization point is relatively easy to achieve because it uses attributes from past versions of LEED that are well-established in the industry.

Hard Costs The hard costs associated with this credit will come from the approximated premium of using FSC certified wood throughout the project.

The following six (6) items have been identified as critical to achieving Option 2 of this credit: Item 055: Structural Steel According to an Indianapolis-based steel fabricator that served on a recent LEED certified project in the Indianapolis region, structural steel in the region can average around 75% post-consumer; 15% preconsumer. This average has been assumed for this

Additional hard costs: $22,000 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

For example, Mohawk Group offers Mindful - BQ397 which meets the stated recycled content requirements:

<https://mohawkcdn.blob.core.windows.net/pdfsustainability-prod/FullSustainability_BQ397_Mindful.pdf> (accessed 28 May 2019).

Additional hard costs: $0

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Figure MRc3-A: Excerpt from the LEED v4 BD+C Building Product Disclosure and Optimization Calculator as applied for this study after incorporating the changes noted for MRc3.

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: CREDIT 4

MRc4: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION – MATERIAL INGREDIENTS POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life-cycle impacts. To reward project teams for selecting products for which the chemical ingredients in the product are inventoried using an accepted methodology and for selecting products verified to minimize the use and generation of harmful substances. To reward raw material manufacturers who produce products verified to have improved lifecycle impacts.

Identify in the inventory all hazard classes for which a classification cannot be made because there are insufficient data for a particular endpoint(s). •

Health Product Declaration. The end use product has a published, complete Health Product Declaration with full disclosure of known hazards in compliance with the Health Product Declaration open Standard.

•

Cradle to Cradle. The end use product has been certified at the Cradle to Cradle v2 Basic level or Cradle to Cradle v3 Bronze level.

•

Declare. The Declare product label must indicate that all ingredients have been evaluated and disclosed down to 1000 ppm.

•

ANSI/BIFMA e3 Furniture Sustainability Standard. The documentation from the assessor or scorecard from BIFMA must demonstrate the product earned at least 3 points under 7.5.1.3 Advanced Level in e3-2014 or 3 points under 7.4.1.3 Advanced Level in e3-2012.

•

Cradle to Cradle Material Health Certificate. The product has been certified at the Bronze level or higher and at least 90% of materials are assessed by weight.

Materials defined as trade secret or intellectual property may withhold the name and/or CASRN/EC Number but must disclose role, amount and hazard screen using either:

•

Product Lens Certification

•

Facts - NSF/ANSI 336: Sustainability Assessment for Commercial Furnishings Fabric at any certification level

GreenScreen benchmark, as defined in GreenScreen v1.2.

•

The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals rev.6 (2015) (GHS)

USGBC approved program. Other USGBC approved programs meeting the material ingredient reporting criteria.

AND/OR

Requirements Option 1. material ingredient reporting (1 point) Use at least 20 different permanently installed products from at least five different manufacturers that use any of the following programs to demonstrate the chemical inventory of the product to at least 0.1% (1000 ppm). •

Manufacturer Inventory. The manufacturer has published complete content inventory for the product following these guidelines: A publicly available inventory of all ingredients identified by name and Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number (CASRN) and/or European Community Number (EC Number)

Option 2. Material ingredient optimization (1 point) Use products that document their material ingredient optimization using the paths below for at least 25%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project.

The hazard screen must be applied to each trade secret ingredient and the inventory lists the hazard category for each of the health hazards included in Part 3 of GHS (e.g. “GHS Category 2 Carcinogen”).

•

GreenScreen v1.2 Benchmark. Products that have fully inventoried chemical ingredients to 100 ppm that have no Benchmark 1 hazards: If any ingredients are assessed with the GreenScreen List Translator, value these products at 100% of cost.

Processes are in place to communicate and transparently prioritize chemical ingredients along the supply chain according to available hazard, exposure and use information to identify those that require more detailed evaluation

If all ingredients are have undergone a full GreenScreen Assessment, value these products at 150% of cost. •

Are sourced from product manufacturers with independent third party verification of their supply chain that at a minimum verifies:

Processes are in place to identify, document, and communicate information on health, safety and environmental characteristics of chemical ingredients

Cradle to Cradle Certified. End use products are certified Cradle to Cradle. Products will be valued as follows:

Processes are in place to implement measures to manage the health, safety and environmental hazard and risk of chemical ingredients

Cradle to Cradle v2 Gold: 100% of cost Cradle to Cradle v2 Platinum: 150% of cost Cradle to Cradle v3 Silver: 100% of cost

Processes are in place to optimize health, safety and environmental impacts when designing and improving chemical ingredients

Cradle to Cradle v3 Gold or Platinum: 150% of cost •

•

International Alternative Compliance Path – REACH Optimization. End use products and materials have fully inventoried chemical ingredients to 100 ppm and assess each substance against the Authorization list – Annex XIV, the Restriction list – Annex XVII and the SVHC candidate list, (the version in effect in June 2013 ), proving that no such substance is included in the product. If the product contains no ingredients listed on the REACH Authorization, Restriction, and Candidate list, value at 100% of cost.

Processes are in place to communicate, receive and evaluate chemical ingredient safety and stewardship information along the supply chain Safety and stewardship information about the chemical ingredients is publicly available from all points along the supply chain Products meeting Option 3 criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation. For credit achievement calculation of options 2 and 3, products sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 100 miles of the project site are valued at 200% of their base contributing cost. For credit achievement calculation, the value of individual products compliant with either option 2 or 3 can be combined to reach the 25% threshold but products compliant with both option 2 and 3 may only be counted once.

USGBC approved program. Products that comply with USGBC approved building product optimization criteria.

AND/OR Option 3. Product Manufacturer Supply Chain Optimization (1 point) Use building products for at least 25%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project that: •

Are sourced from product manufacturers who engage in validated and robust safety, health, hazard, and risk programs which at a minimum document at least 99% (by weight) of the ingredients used to make the building product or building material, and

Assessment Option 1 of this credit is easily attained; while Option 2 was assessed and determined to not be feasible at this point in time.

13. Declare: ASSA ABLOY – McKinney Door Hinge (Interior Doors) 14. Declare: Benjamin Moore – Ultra Spec 500 Interior Primer N534

For the purposes of this study, the authors pursued compliant products in the marketplace that would meet the project specifications.

15. Declare: Benjamin Moore – Ultra Spec 500 Interior Semi-Glass Finish N539

Item 061: Prioritize/Choose Products with Approved Disclosures of Material Ingredients The compliant products identified are listed below.

16. Declare: ASC Steel Deck – 1.5B Roof Deck 17. Declare: GAF – EnergyGuard NH Polyiso

HPD v2.1: Carpet Tile – Mohawk – Broadloom

Declare: ROCKWOOL – Mineral wood insulation (CAVITYROCK)

Declare: Armstrong – Axiom Trims & Transitions

19. Declare: Detex Corporation – Advantex 10 Series Rim Exit Device

Declare: Armstrong – Ultima High NRC ACT

20. C2C Silver: Mosa – Wall Tiles

Declare: Armstrong – Prelude XL

HPD v2.1.1: Owens Corning – FOAMULAR Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) Insulation

Hard Costs There is no hard cost premium associated with Option 1 of this credit. This point can be achieved through cost-effective alternative products in the marketplace.

Declare: Kawneer – 1600 Curtain Wall

Additional hard costs: $0

Declare: Kawneer – 190/350/500 Standard Entrances

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Declare: Oregon Door – Architectural & Craftsman Series Flush Door w/ Wood Face (FSC)

Additional hard costs: $0

18. Declare: Sloan – Royal 111 manual flushometer 1.28 gpf

10. C2C Bronze: Mecho – Mecho/5 System

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

11. Declare: ASSA ABLOY – Trio-E Steel Stiffened Hollow Metal Door Group

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

12. Declare: ASSA ABLOY – Norton 7500 Series Door Closer (Interior Doors)

LEEDv4 BD+C - MATERIAL & RESOURCES: CREDIT 5

MRc6: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To reduce construction and demolition waste disposed of in landfills and incineration facilities by recovering, reusing, and recycling materials.

OR Option 2. reduction of total waste material (2 points) Do not generate more than 2.5 pounds of construction waste per square foot of the building's floor area.

Requirements Recycle and/or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition materials. Calculations can be by weight or volume but must be consistent throughout.

Exclude excavated soil, land-clearing debris from calculations. Include materials destined for alternative daily cover (ADC) in the calculations as waste (not diversion). Include wood waste converted to fuel (biofuel) in the calculations; other types of waste-toenergy are not considered diversion for this credit.

Assessment The cost will be specific to each job. Item 062: Construction Waste Management The Contractor would need to identify any unique cost burdens associated with this credit based on the specifics of a project. Note that it is intended that the Contractorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s LEED fee covers this scope of work for this project.

However, for projects that cannot meet credit requirements using reuse and recycling methods, waste-to-energy systems may be considered waste diversion if the European Commission Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC and Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC are followed and Waste to Energy facilities meet applicable European Committee for Standardization (CEN) EN 303 standards.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs While there would be additional efforts required by the Contractor, the premium associated with the execution of this additional scope is captured by the documentation / implementation fee (item 098) and therefore is not included here.

Option 1. diversion (1-2 points) Path 1. divert 50% and three material streams (1 point) Divert at least 50% of the total construction and demolition material; diverted materials must include at least three material streams.

Additional soft costs: $0

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Path 2. divert 75% and four material streams (2 points) Divert at least 75% of the total construction and demolition material; diverted materials must include at least four material streams.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: PREREQUISITE 1

EQp1: MINIMUM INDOOR AIR QUALITY PERFORMANCE POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To contribute to the comfort and well-being of building occupants by establishing minimum standards for indoor air quality (IAQ).

must indicate when the outdoor airflow value varies by 15% or more from the outdoor airflow setpoint. •

Requirements Meet the requirements for both ventilation and monitoring. Ventilation Mechanically ventilated spaces Option 1. ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2010 For mechanically ventilated spaces (and for mixedmode systems when the mechanical ventilation is activated), determine the minimum outdoor air intake flow for mechanical ventilation systems using the ventilation rate procedure from ASHRAE 62.1–2010 or a local equivalent, whichever is more stringent.

For constant-volume systems, balance outdoor airflow to the design minimum outdoor airflow rate defined by ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2010 (with errata), or higher. Install a current transducer on the supply fan, an airflow switch, or similar monitoring device.

Naturally ventilated spaces (This option does not apply to the project used for this study. Therefore, information is not included here.) Residential only (This option does not apply to the project used for this study. Therefore, information is not included here.)

Meet the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2010, Sections 4–7, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (with errata), or a local equivalent, whichever is more stringent.

Option 2. CEN Standards EN 15251–2007 and EN 13779–2007 (This option does not apply to the project used for this study. Therefore, information is not included here.)

Assessment Regarding the ventilation requirement: Most building codes and mechanical codes require ventilation, either referencing ASHRAE 62.1 or using with similar requirements, so this prerequisite will not add any significant premium to most projects.

Naturally ventilated spaces This option does not apply to the project used for this study. Therefore, information is not included here.

Regarding the monitoring requirement: New in LEED v4, this prerequisite incorporates previously optional ventilation monitoring.

All spaces The indoor air quality procedure defined in ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2010 may not be used to comply with this prerequisite.

When using a mechanical ventilation system, adding air flow measurement to rooftop units, air handlers, or even to a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) unit is usually a simple matter of specifying the unit manufacturer’s outdoor air measurement option or selecting a dedicated air flow measurement device from a manufacturer for field installation. Control systems should be robust enough to track and log airflow readings and generate an alarm if readings vary from the setpoint by more than 15%.

Monitoring Mechanically ventilated spaces For mechanically ventilated spaces (and for mixedmode systems when the mechanical ventilation is activated), monitor outdoor air intake flow as follows: •

For variable air volume systems, provide a direct outdoor airflow measurement device capable of measuring the minimum outdoor air intake flow. This device must measure the minimum outdoor air intake flow with an accuracy of +/–10% of the design minimum outdoor airflow rate, as defined by the ventilation requirements above. An alarm

Item 063: OA Monitoring Devices Install a direct outdoor airflow (OA) measurement device on each RTU.

Hard Costs This project uses a VAV system, so we would need a direct outdoor airflow measurement device on each RTU.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Additional hard costs: $15,840 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: PREREQUISITE 2

EQp2: ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE CONTROL POINTS POSSIBLE: REQUIRED Intent To prevent or minimize exposure of building occupants, indoor surfaces, and ventilation air distribution systems to environmental tobacco smoke.

Assessment For commercial properties, there is no cost associated with enacting a non-smoking policy. Some signage would be required, as LEED does call for signage at least 25 feet from all entries, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows.

Requirements Prohibit smoking inside the building.

Item 064: Outdoor ETS Control Signage This project has RTUs and fixed windows. Approximately four (4) “No Smoking” signs on posts (two per entry) would be required as a minimum.

Prohibit smoking outside the building except in designated smoking areas located at least 25 feet from all entries, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows. Also prohibit smoking outside the property line in spaces used for business purposes.

Hard Costs The signage would come at a small cost premium.

If the requirement to prohibit smoking within 25 feet cannot be implemented because of code, provide documentation of these regulations.

Additional hard costs: $2,200 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Signage must be posted within 10 feet of all building entrances indicating the no-smoking policy.

Additional soft costs: $0 Residential Only (This option does not apply to the project used for this study. Therefore, information is not included here.)

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 1

EQc1: ENHANCED AIR QUALITY STRATEGIES POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To promote occupants’ comfort, well-being, and productivity by improving indoor air quality.

and printing rooms), using the exhaust rates determined in EQ Prerequisite Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance or a minimum of 0.50 cfm per square foot (2.54 l/s per square meter), to create negative pressure with respect to adjacent spaces when the doors to the room are closed. For each of these spaces, provide self-closing doors and deck-todeck partitions or a hard-lid ceiling.

Requirements Option 1. Enhanced IAQ strategies (1 point) Comply with the following requirements, as applicable. Mechanically ventilated spaces:

B. interior cross-contamination prevention; and

C. Filtration Each ventilation system that supplies outdoor air to occupied spaces must have particle filters or aircleaning devices that meet one of the following filtration media requirements:

C. filtration.

•

A. entryway systems;

minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 or higher, in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 52.2–2007

Naturally ventilated spaces: Replace all air filtration media after completion of construction and before occupancy.

A. entryway systems; and D. natural ventilation design calculations.

D. Natural ventilation design calculations Demonstrate that the system design for occupied spaces employs the appropriate strategies in Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) Applications Manual AM10, March 2005, Natural Ventilation in Non-Domestic Buildings, Section 2.4.

Mixed-mode systems: A. entryway systems; B. interior cross-contamination prevention;

E. Mixed-mode design calculations Demonstrate that the system design for occupied spaces complies with CIBSE Applications Manual 13– 2000, Mixed Mode Ventilation.

C. filtration; D. natural ventilation design calculations; and E. mixed-mode design calculations.

Option 2. Additional enhanced IAQ strategies (1 point) Comply with the following requirements, as applicable.

A. Entryway systems Install permanent entryway systems at least 10 feet (3 meters) long in the primary direction of travel to capture dirt and particulates entering the building at regularly used exterior entrances. Acceptable entryway systems include permanently installed grates, grilles, slotted systems that allow for cleaning underneath, rollout mats, and any other materials manufactured as entryway systems with equivalent or better performance. Maintain all on a weekly basis.

Mechanically ventilated spaces (select one): A. exterior contamination prevention; B. increased ventilation; C. carbon dioxide monitoring; or D. additional source control and monitoring.

B. Interior cross-contamination prevention Sufficiently exhaust each space where hazardous gases or chemicals may be present or used (e.g., garages, housekeeping and laundry areas, copying

Naturally ventilated spaces (select one): A. exterior contamination prevention;

C. Carbon dioxide monitoring Monitor CO2 concentrations within all densely occupied spaces. CO2 monitors must be between 3 and 6 feet (900 and 1 800 millimeters) above the floor. CO2 monitors must have an audible or visual indicator or alert the building automation system if the sensed CO2 concentration exceeds the setpoint by more than 10%. Calculate appropriate CO2 setpoints using methods in ASHRAE 62.1–2010, Appendix C.

D. additional source control and monitoring; or E. natural ventilation room by room calculations.

Mixed-mode systems (select one): A. exterior contamination prevention; B. increased ventilation;

D. Additional source control and monitoring For spaces where air contaminants are likely, evaluate potential sources of additional air contaminants besides CO2. Develop and implement a materials-handling plan to reduce the likelihood of contaminant release. Install monitoring systems with sensors designed to detect the specific contaminants. An alarm must indicate any unusual or unsafe conditions.

D. additional source control and monitoring; or E. natural ventilation room-by-room calculations.

A. Exterior contamination prevention Design the project to minimize and control the entry of pollutants into the building. Ensure through the results of computational fluid dynamics modeling, Gaussian dispersion analyses, wind tunnel modeling, or tracer gas modeling that outdoor air contaminant concentrations at outdoor air intakes are below the thresholds listed in Table 1 (or local equivalent for projects outside the U.S., whichever is more stringent).

E. Natural ventilation room-by-room calculations Follow CIBSE AM10, Section 4, Design Calculations, to predict that room-by-room airflows will provide effective natural ventilation. Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Table EQc1-A: Maximum concentrations of pollutants at outdoor air intakes Pollutants Maximum Standard Concentration Those Allowable National regulated by annual Ambient Air National average Quality Ambient Air Standards Quality OR (NAAQS) Standards (NAAQS) 8-hour or 24hour average where an annual standard does not exist

Assessment The project would need to pursue Option 1 items under “mechanically ventilated spaces” as the building is fully conditions by the RTUs. Entryway system. The main vestibule of the existing building features a compliant walk-off carpet. As it is more than 10-feet in the direction of travel, the entryway system would comply as designed. Item 065: Additional Duct for Separate Exhaust Interior cross-contamination prevention. In terms of separate exhaust for indoor contaminant sources, there are multiple spaces on each floor that would need dedicated exhaust. All of these spaces are near the core and have proximity to the dedicated exhaust line. The team determined that the current building design would need approximately 205-feet of additional 12-inch diameter of additional exhaust ductwork and as many as thirteen (13) additional grilles of various dimensions. Testing and balancing would need to be included in the additional costs.

OR Rolling 3month average

Filtration. The existing project would comply with the filtration requirement.

B. Increased ventilation Increase breathing zone outdoor air ventilation rates to all occupied spaces by at least 30% above the minimum rates as determined in EQ Prerequisite Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance.

Item 066: Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Carbon dioxide monitoring. Pursuant to Option 2, the authors considered the available options and determined that carbon dioxide monitoring would offer the most cost-effective pathway for compliance. The

authors assumed a sensor per HVAC zone (per thermostat) for 51 total sensors added to the project.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Hard Costs The interior cross-contamination prevention and carbon dioxide monitoring solutions would add costs to the project.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Additional hard costs: $28,960 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 2

EQc2: LOW-EMITTING MATERIALS POINTS POSSIBLE: 3 Intent To reduce concentrations of chemical contaminants that can damage air quality, human health, productivity, and the environment. Requirements This credit includes requirements for product manufacturing as well as project teams. It covers volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in the indoor air and the VOC content of materials, as well as the testing methods by which indoor VOC emissions are determined. Different materials must meet different requirements to be considered compliant for this credit. The building interior and exterior are organized in seven categories, each with different thresholds of compliance. The building interior is defined as everything within the waterproofing membrane. The building exterior is defined as everything outside and inclusive of the primary and secondary weatherproofing system, such as waterproofing membranes and air- and waterresistive barrier materials. Option 1. Product Category Calculations Achieve the threshold level of compliance with emissions and content standards for the number of product categories listed in Table 2. Table 1. Thresholds of compliance with emissions and content standards for 7 categories of materials Category Threshold Emissions and content requirements Interior paints At least 90%, • General and coatings by volume, Emissions applied on for emissions; Evaluation site 100% for for paints VOC content and coatings applied to walls, floors, and ceilings •

Interior adhesives and sealants applied on

At least 90%, by volume, for emissions;

•

site (including flooring adhesive)

100% for VOC content

•

Flooring

100%

General Emissions Evaluation

Composite wood

100% not covered by other categories

Composite Wood Evaluation

Ceilings, walls, thermal, and acoustic insulation

100%

•

Furniture (include in calculations if part of scope of work)

At least 90%, by cost

Furniture Evaluation

VOC content requirements for wet applied products

General Emissions Evaluation

Table 2. Points for number of compliant categories of products Compliant Categories Points NC projects without furniture 2 1 4 2 5 3 NC projects with furniture 3 1 5 2 6 3 Option 2. Budget Calculation Method If some products in a category do not meet the criteria, project teams may use the budget calculation method (Table 3).

VOC content requirements for wet applied products

Table 3. Points for percentage compliance, under budget calculation method Percentage of total Points ≥ 50% and < 70% 1 ≥ 70% and < 90% 2 ≥ 90% 3

General Emissions Evaluation

100

The budget method organizes the building interior into five assemblies:

Calculate surface area of assembly layers based on the manufacturer’s documentation for application.

• • • • •

If 90% of an assembly meets the criteria, the system counts as 100% compliant. If less than 50% of an assembly meets the criteria, the assembly counts as 0% compliant.

flooring; ceilings; walls; thermal and acoustic insulation; furniture

Manufacturers’ claims. Both first-party and third-party statements of product compliance must follow the guidelines in CDPH SM V1.1–2010, Section 8. Organizations that certify manufacturers’ claims must be accredited under ISO Guide 65.

Include furniture in the calculations if it is part of the scope of work. Walls, ceilings, and flooring are defined as building interior products; each layer of the assembly, including paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants, must be evaluated for compliance. Insulation is tracked separately.

Laboratory requirements. Laboratories that conduct the tests specified in this credit must be accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 for the test methods they use.

Determine the total percentage of compliant materials according to Equation 1.

Emissions and Content Requirements To demonstrate compliance, a product or layer must meet all of the following requirements, as applicable.

Equation 1. Total percentage compliance

Inherently nonemitting sources. Products that are inherently nonemitting sources of VOCs (stone, ceramic, powder-coated metals, plated or anodized metal, glass, concrete, clay brick, and unfinished or untreated solid wood) are considered fully compliant without any VOC emissions testing if they do not include integral organic-based surface coatings, binders, or sealants.

Total % compliant for projects without furniture = (% compliant walls + % compliant ceilings + % compliant flooring + % compliant insulation) / 4 Total % compliant for projects with furniture = (% compliant walls + % compliant ceilings + % compliant flooring + % compliant insulation) + (% compliant furniture) / 5

General emissions evaluation. Building products must be tested and determined compliant in accordance with California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method v1.1–2010, using the applicable exposure scenario. The default scenario is the private office scenario. The manufacturer’s or third-party certification must state the exposure scenario used to determine compliance. Claims of compliance for wetapplied products must state the amount applied in mass per surface area.

Equation 2. System percentage compliant Flooring, walls, ceilings, insulation % compliant = [ (compliant surface area of layer 1 + compliant surface area of layer 2 + compliant surface area of layer 3 + …) /

Manufacturers’ claims of compliance with the above requirements must also state the range of total VOCs after 14 days (336 hours), measured as specified in the CDPH Standard Method v1.1:

(total surface area of layer 1 + total surface area of layer 2 + total surface area of layer 3 + …) ] x 100

Equation 3. Furniture systems compliant, using ANSI/BIFMA evaluation

•

0.5 mg/m3 or less;

% compliant for furniture =

•

between 0.5 and 5.0 mg/m3; or

[ (0.5 x cost compliant with §7.6.1 of ANSI/BIFMA e32011 + cost compliant with §7.6.2 of ANSI/BIFMA e32011) /

•

mg/m3 or more.

Projects outside the U.S. may use products tested and deemed compliant in accordance with either (1) the CDPH standard method (2010) or (2) the German AgBB Testing and Evaluation Scheme (2010). Test products either with (1) the CDPH Standard Method (2010), (2) the German AgBB Testing and Evaluation

(total furniture cost) ] x 100

101

Scheme (2010), (3) ISO 16000-3: 2010, ISO 16000-6: 2011, ISO 16000-9: 2006, ISO 16000-11:2006 either in conjunction with AgBB, or with French legislation on VOC emission class labeling, or (4) the DIBt testing method (2010). If the applied testing method does not specify testing details for a product group for which the CDPH standard method does provide details, use the specifications in the CDPH standard method. U.S. projects must follow the CDPH standard method.

comply with ASTM D2369-10; ISO 11890, part 1; ASTM D6886-03; or ISO 11890-2. •

Composite Wood Evaluation. Composite wood, as defined by the California Air Resources Board, Airborne Toxic Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products Regulation, must be documented to have low formaldehyde emissions that meet the California Air Resources Board ATCM for formaldehyde requirements for ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins or no added formaldehyde resins. For projects outside the U.S., composite wood must be documented not to exceed a concentration limit of 0.05 ppm of formaldehyde (0.06 mg/m2-h when expressed as emission rate) as tested following either EN-717-1:2004, following ISO 16000-3: 2010, ISO 16000-6: 2011, ISO 16000-9: 2006, ISO 1600011:2006, or following CEN/TS 16516: 2013 either in conjunction with AgBB or with Belgian or French legislation on VOC emission class labeling.

Additional VOC content requirements for wet-applied products. In addition to meeting the general requirements for VOC emissions (above), on-site wetapplied products must not contain excessive levels of VOCs, for the health of the installers and other tradesworkers who are exposed to these products. To demonstrate compliance, a product or layer must meet the following requirements, as applicable. Disclosure of VOC content must be made by the manufacturer. Any testing must follow the test method specified in the applicable regulation. •

All paints and coatings wet-applied on site must meet the applicable VOC limits of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2007, Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings, or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113, effective June 3, 2011.

•

All adhesives and sealants wet-applied on site must meet the applicable chemical content requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1168, July 1, 2005, Adhesive and Sealant Applications, as analyzed by the methods specified in Rule 1168. The provisions of SCAQMD Rule 1168 do not apply to adhesives and sealants subject to state or federal consumer product VOC regulations.

•

For projects outside the U.S., all paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants wet-applied on site must either meet the technical requirements of the above regulations, or comply with applicable national VOC control regulations, such as the European Decopaint Directive (2004/42/EC), the Canadian VOC Concentration Limits for Architectural Coatings, or the Hong Kong Air Pollution Control (VOC) Regulation.

•

For projects in North America, methylene chloride and perchloroethylene may not be intentionally added in paints, coatings, adhesives, or sealants.

Salvaged and reused architectural millwork more than one year old at the time of occupancy is considered compliant, provided it meets the requirements for any site-applied paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants. Furniture evaluation. New furniture and furnishing items must be tested in accordance with ANSI/BIFMA Standard Method M7.1–2011. Comply with ANSI/BIFMA e3-2011 Furniture Sustainability Standard, Sections 7.6.1 (for half credit, by cost) OR 7.6.2 (for full credit, by cost), using either the concentration modeling approach or the emissions factor approach. Model the test results using the open plan, private office, or seating scenario in ANSI/BIFMA M7.1, as appropriate. USGBC-approved equivalent testing methodologies and contaminant thresholds are also acceptable. For classroom furniture, use the standard school classroom model in CDPH Standard Method v1.1. Documentation submitted for furniture must indicate the modeling scenario used to determine compliance. Salvaged and reused furniture more than one year old at the time of use is considered compliant, provided it meets the requirements for any site-applied paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants.

If the applicable regulation requires subtraction of exempt compounds, any content of intentionally added exempt compounds larger than 1% weight by mass (total exempt compounds) must be disclosed.

If a product cannot reasonably be tested as specified above, testing of VOC content must

102

Assessment Low-emitting materials were assessed across all applicable categories. The authors cross-referenced the drawings and specifications of the existing building with the LEED criteria and identified a shortlist of changes to ensure the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compliance.

Item 070: Composite Wood Items in this category would include any low-emitting MDF, plywood, agrifiber board, panel substrate, door cores, and particleboard. Any one of these items could come with a 3% - 10% increase in costs. During the pricing exercise, the aggregate cost differential to change the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interior items that fell under this category were negligible. It is important to note that the existing project did not contain much composite wood. If it did, there would be a greater cost associated with this product category.

In addition, this credit would require the careful attention of the Contractor with regard to reviewing and coordaining submittals throughout the construction administration process.

Item 071: Ceilings, Walls, Thermal, and Acoustic Insulation Items in this category largely complied with the credit criteria. This is a testament to how the market has shifted in response to LEED.

Item 067: Interior Paints and Coatings A review of the interior paints and coatings on the project did not yield consistent emissions criteria in accordance with LEEDv4. However, during the pricing exercise it was determined that the specifications could have carried the criteria and it would have made a negligible difference in construction costs. Vendors consistently reaffirmed that low-emitting paints and coatings are fairly standard today and frequently do not carry a premium.

Hard Costs The cost of pursuing this credit was relatively high compared to other credits. This is partly due to the breadth of materials and products covered by the credit. However, the interior adhesives and sealants category carried the significant increase in cost in this case study. If the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s flooring solution changed, the cost for this category could drop dramatically.

Item 068: Interior Adhesives and Sealants Interior adhesives and sealants applied on-site includes floor adhesives. Within the scope of this study, this presented a major cost burden. The threefloor office building assessed for this study contains approximately 70,000-sf of carpet. The change to the flooring adhesive will come with a premium, but the project would also incur a premium for floor preparation for moisture mitigation and to improve bonding strength.

Additional hard costs: $250,250 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Item 069: Flooring The authors determined that the flooring category could be pursued for a negligible cost differential. With the exception of the walk-off mats and some areas of sealed concrete, the rest of the project is comprised of commercial-grade carpet flooring.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

103

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 3

EQc3: CONSTRUCTION INDOOR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To promote the well-being of construction workers and building occupants by minimizing indoor air quality problems associated with construction and renovation.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment This credit mandates construction management “best practices” that should largely be standard practice for design and construction teams. For teams that have integrated these practices, there should be a negligible construction cost premium.

Requirements Develop and implement an indoor air quality (IAQ) management plan for the construction and preoccupancy phases of the building. The plan must address all of the following.

Item 072: Construction IAQ Plan The credit calls for developing an IAQ plan in accordance with the defined criteria. The plan will define the processes through which a Contractor should protect installed materials and equipment during construction. Even if the dust, odor, and contaminant control practices required for compliance under this credit during construction are not standard procedures for the contractor, there should be little added cost to adopt them.

During construction, meet or exceed all applicable recommended control measures of the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Contractors Association (SMACNA) IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings under Construction, 2nd edition, 2007, ANSI/SMACNA 008–2008, Chapter 3. Protect absorptive materials stored on-site and installed from moisture damage. Do not operate permanently installed air-handling equipment during construction unless filtration media with a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 8, as determined by ASHRAE 52.2–2007, with errata (or equivalent filtration media class of F5 or higher, as defined by CEN Standard EN 779–2002, Particulate Air Filters for General Ventilation, Determination of the Filtration Performance), are installed at each return air grille and return or transfer duct inlet opening such that there is no bypass around the filtration media. Immediately before occupancy, replace all filtration media with the final design filtration media, installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Prohibit the use of tobacco products inside the building and within 25 feet of the building entrance during construction.

104

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 4

EQc4: INDOOR AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To establish better quality indoor air in the building after construction and during occupancy.

After construction ends and before occupancy, but under ventilation conditions typical for occupancy, conduct baseline IAQ testing using protocols consistent with the methods listed in Table 1 for all occupied spaces. Use current versions of ASTM standard methods, EPA compendium methods, or ISO methods, as indicated. Laboratories that conduct the tests for chemical analysis of formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds must be accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 for the test methods they use. Retail projects may conduct the testing within 14 days of occupancy.

Requirements Select one of the following two options, to be implemented after construction ends and the building has been completely cleaned. All interior finishes, such as millwork, doors, paint, carpet, acoustic tiles, and movable furnishings (e.g., workstations, partitions), must be installed, and major VOC punch list items must be finished. The options cannot be combined.

Demonstrate that contaminants do not exceed the concentration levels listed in Table 1.

Option 1. Flush-out (1 point) Path 1. Before occupancy Install new filtration media and perform a building flush-out by supplying a total air volume of 14,000 cubic feet of outdoor air per square foot (4 267 140 liters of outdoor air per square meter) of gross floor area while maintaining an internal temperature of at least 60°F (15°C) and no higher than 80°F (27°C) and relative humidity no higher than 60%.

Table 1. Maximum concentration levels, by contaminant and testing method (See below at end of credit assessment.) Conduct all measurements before occupancy but during normal occupied hours, with the building ventilation system started at the normal daily start time and operated at the minimum outdoor airflow rate for the occupied mode throughout the test.

OR Path 2. During occupancy If occupancy is desired before the flush-out is completed, the space may be occupied only after delivery of a minimum of 3,500 cubic feet of outdoor air per square foot (1 066 260 liters of outdoor air per square meter) of gross floor area while maintaining an internal temperature of at least 60°F (15°C) and no higher than 80°F (27°C) and relative humidity no higher than 60%.

For each sampling point where the concentration exceeds the limit, take corrective action and retest for the noncompliant contaminants at the same sampling points. Repeat until all requirements are met. Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment For the purposes of this study, the authors investigated both options.

Once the space is occupied, it must be ventilated at a minimum rate of 0.30 cubic foot per minute (CFM) per square foot of outdoor air (1.5 liters per second per square meter of outdoor air) or the design minimum outdoor air rate determined in EQ Prerequisite Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, whichever is greater. During each day of the flush-out period, ventilation must begin at least three hours before occupancy and continue during occupancy. These conditions must be maintained until a total of 14,000 cubic feet per square foot of outdoor air (4 267 140 liters of outdoor air per square meter) has been delivered to the space.

Item 073: Flush-Out Option 1. The cost of flushing is driven by the time needed to complete the flush to meet the credit requirements, and the energy for the heating or cooling of the outside air needed to maintain the interior space conditions. This will be driven by project size, type, time of year, and climate. Occurring at the end of construction when time and money may be in short supply, this task must be budgeted and planned early and carefully. On the plus side, flushing commonly overlaps with a project’s closeout phase, and teams have learned how to work it in.

OR Option 2. Air testing (2 points)

105

Team members are not required to be on site for the flush-out; execution is a matter of maintaining the required humidity and temperatures until the total CFM volume of air is met.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

In order to diminish/negate cost-related impacts due to schedule changes, the authors assumed the flushout would be pursued using Path 2 (During Occupancy).

Soft Costs While the flush-out would not necessarily prompt an increase in soft cost, air testing services certainly will.

Additional hard costs: $0

Additional soft costs: $8,600 (air testing) In accordance with Path 2, prior to occupancy: •

Supply a minimum of 3,500 cu ft of outdoor air per square foot of floor area

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

•

Maintain an internal building temperature of at least 60°F and no higher than 80°F

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

•

Maintain an internal building relative humidity no higher than 60%

During each day of occupancy: •

Ventilation must begin at least three hours prior to occupancy and continue during occupancy, until a total of 14,000 cubic footage of outdoor air per square foot has been delivered to the space.

•

Outdoor air must be delivered at minimum rate of 0.30 CFM of outdoor air per square foot or at the design minimum outdoor air rate, whichever is greater.

Item 074: Air Testing Option 2. Air testing will come at a significant soft cost increase. In addition to project-specific factors, the testing requirements for LEEDv4 remain relatively new and LEED practitioners are still learning what companies can offer relevant services, and at what costs. On a recent 112,000 gross square foot project in Bloomington, Indiana, the PI procured air-testing services for approximately $10,000. On a recent 160,000 gross square foot LEED project in Indianapolis, Indiana, air-testing was quoted near $20,000. Based on these examples from actual LEED projects in the region, the air testing service appears to range from roughly 9 cents to 12.5 cents per gross square foot. The cost will vary based on project complexity. For the purposes of this study, the authors assumed a fee based on 10.75 center per gross square foot. The case study for this assessment is relatively simple; therefore, the fee may actually be less.

106

107

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 5

EQc5: THERMAL COMFORT POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To promote occupants’ productivity, comfort, and wellbeing by providing quality thermal comfort.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment Complying with ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 per Option 1 is standard practice. The more challenging component of this credit is to provide individual control of air temperature, air speed, radiant temperature or humidity for 50% of the occupant spaces. (Note: the word “spaces” is new to LEED v4, and should ease credit compliance compared with LEED 2009, which covered “occupants” and made compliance for projects with large open office spaces very difficult.)

Requirements Meet the requirements for both thermal comfort design and thermal comfort control. Thermal comfort design Option 1. ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 Design heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems and the building envelope to meet the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 55–2010, Thermal Comfort Conditions for Human Occupancy, with errata or a local equivalent.

Single zone packaged rooftop units make this credit difficult, as will multi-zone rooftop units with VAV boxes. To make a VAV box system work, a project must use one box for every two private offices at most (to achieve 50%), which can significantly impact cost.

For natatoriums, demonstrate compliance with ASHRAE HVAC Applications Handbook, 2011 edition, Chapter 5, Places of Assembly, Typical Natatorium Design Conditions, with errata. OR

This project uses VAV rooftop units with local zone VAV boxes. Normally, an engineer would provide one interior VAV box per 1,500–1,800 ft2 of open office, and one perimeter box per 750–900 ft2 (assuming 50– 60 linear feet of perimeter wall length and maximum 15-foot-deep zone). Compliance with this credit would mean one box for every two work spaces, which might be 20–30 linear feet of perimeter wall instead of 50–60 feet, which means tripling the quantity of fanpowered VAV boxes needed. Similarly, for interior areas, if the space is open office with systems furniture, 1,500–1,800 ft2 might include 18–20 people, including corridors between cubes. To comply with credit requirements, this same area would need 10 VAV boxes instead of one box. This would greatly increase costs. The cost savings due to the reduction in the capacity and size of the VAV box or fan coil, etc., is more than offset by the added costs of the additional units, with the associated connections to power, primary air duct, piping, and controls.

Option 2. ISO and CEN Standards Design HVAC systems and the building envelope to meet the requirements of the applicable standard: •

ISO 7730:2005, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment, analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort, using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria; and

•

CEN Standard EN 15251:2007, Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings, addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting, and acoustics, Section A2.

Thermal comfort control Provide individual thermal comfort controls for at least 50% of individual occupant spaces. Provide group thermal comfort controls for all shared multioccupant spaces, and for any individual occupant spaces without individual controls.

Item 075: Additional VAV Boxes and Personal Fans Add 28 VAV boxes (downsize where appropriate); add 300 desk fans for individual controls. We intend to increase the number of VAV boxes in order to serve 50% of the closed work spaces. As all spaces are served with ductwork, we are assuming the amount of ductwork required would be very similar to the existing design. In open office areas, we intend to provide individual thermal controls via local desk fans. This operability of air velocity at the level of individual

Thermal comfort controls allow occupants, whether in individual spaces or shared multioccupant spaces, to adjust at least one of the following in their local environment: air temperature, radiant temperature, air speed, and humidity.

108

work stations will be helpful considering the energyrelated strategy of adjusting thermostat setpoints.

included in the LEED strategy (unlike energy modeling, which is included in any of this studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s LEED strategies), the creditâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s component of the MEP LEED softs could be broken out.

Hard Costs This credit requires considerable adjustments to the VAV HVAC system. In addition, the project may need as many as 300 personal desk fans.

Additional soft costs: $3,000 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional hard costs: $92,290 Soft Costs The engineers we consulted for this study suggested that a significant component of the MEP LEED-related service fees relate to this credit due to the atypical practice of effectively resolving the individual controls aspect of this credit. As such, if this credit is not

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

109

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 6

EQc6: INTERIOR LIGHTING POINTS POSSIBLE: 2 Intent To promote occupants’ productivity, comfort, and wellbeing by providing high-quality lighting. Requirements Select one or both of the following two options. Option 1. Lighting control (1 point) For at least 90% of individual occupant spaces, provide individual lighting controls that enable occupants to adjust the lighting to suit their individual tasks and preferences, with at least three lighting levels or scenes (on, off, midlevel). Midlevel is 30% to 70% of the maximum illumination level (not including daylight contributions). For all shared multioccupant spaces, meet all of the following requirements. •

Have in place multizone control systems that enable occupants to adjust the lighting to meet group needs and preferences, with at least three lighting levels or scenes (on, off, midlevel).

•

Lighting for any presentation or projection wall must be separately controlled.

•

Switches or manual controls must be located in the same space as the controlled luminaires. A person operating the controls must have a direct line of sight to the controlled luminaires.

AND/OR Option 2. Lighting quality (1 point) Choose four of the following strategies. A.

For all regularly occupied spaces, use light fixtures with a luminance of less than 2,500 cd/m2 between 45 and 90 degrees from nadir. Exceptions include wallwash fixtures properly aimed at walls, as specified by manufacturer’s data, indirect uplighting fixtures, provided there is no view down into these uplights from a regularly occupied space above, and any other specific applications (i.e. adjustable fixtures).

For the entire project, use light sources with a CRI of 80 or higher. Exceptions include lamps or fixtures specifically designed to provide colored lighting for effect, site lighting, or other special use.

C. For 75% of the total connected lighting load, use light sources that have a rated life (or L70 for LED sources) of at least 24,000 hours (at 3-hour per start, if applicable). D. Use direct-only overhead lighting for 25% or less of the total connected lighting load for all regularly occupied spaces. E.

For 90% of the regularly occupied floor area, meet the following thresholds for area-weighted average surface reflectance: 85% for ceilings, 60% for walls, and 25% for floors.

If furniture is included in the scope of work, select furniture finishes to meet the following thresholds for area-weighted average surface reflectance: 45% for work surfaces, and 50% for movable partitions.

G. For 75% of the regularly occupied floor area, meet ratio of average wall surface illuminance (excluding fenestration) to average work plane (or surface, if defined) illuminance that does not exceed 1:10. Must also meet strategy E, strategy F, or demonstrate area-weighted surface reflectance of 60% for walls. H. For 75% of the regularly occupied floor area, meet ratio of average ceiling illuminance (excluding fenestration) to work surface illuminance that does not exceed 1:10. Must also meet strategy E, strategy F, or demonstrate areaweighted surface reflectance of 85% for ceilings. Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment Option 1. The existing current lighting package consists of 100% dimmable LED luminaires (with the exception of specialty lighting related to egress and emergency). However, most offices have wall-mounted occupancy sensor switches. In 90% of individual spaces, wallmounted dimmer occupancy sensor switches would need to be provided. In the open office areas, lighting is tied to ceilingmounted occupancy sensors. These spaces should be adjusted to contain wall-mounted dimmer occupancy sensor switches as well.

Item 079: Area-Weighted Average Surface Reflectance for Ceilings, Walls, and Floors (Strategy E) For 90% of the regularly occupied floor area, meet the following thresholds for area-weighted average surface reflectance: 85% for ceilings, 60% for walls, and 25% for floors. No additional costs are anticipated for this item, although the 25% limit for flooring could be a challenge in a heavily carpeted interior such as this project.

Item 076: Lighting Control Pursuant to Option 1. Change 81 individual room wall switch occupancy sensors to dimming wall switch vacancy sensors. Provide 0-10V wiring and raceway from switch to lighting fixtures. Open office spaces and large conference rooms are currently designed with just occupancy sensors. These need to be enhanced with a manual on vacancy switch with a dimmer. This is the same for conference rooms. This would include a momentary switch to turn the lights on and a slide dimmer to control the lighting levels. It appears that these are needed in 46 locations.

Item 080: Area-Weighted Average Surface Reflectance for Furniture (Strategy F) Select furniture finishes to meet the following thresholds for area-weighted average surface reflectance: 45% for work surfaces, and 50% for movable partitions. No additional costs are anticipated for this item.

Option 2. The authors determined that lighting quality strategies B, C, E, F, G, and H could be achieved on this project with negligible cost impacts. Please note that strategies G and H have not been itemized. Item 077: High CRI Lighting (Strategy B) For the entire project, use light sources with a CRI of 80 or higher. Exceptions include lamps or fixtures specifically designed to provide colored lighting for effect, site lighting, or other special use. Existing lighting package provides for this at no additional cost.

Hard Costs The lighting controls would prompt additional hard costs. Additional hard costs: $13,008 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Item 078: Lighting Rated Life >24,000 Hours (Strategy C) For 75% of the total connected lighting load, use light sources that have a rated life (or L70 for LED sources) of at least 24,000 hours (at 3-hour per start, if applicable). Existing lighting package provides for this at no additional cost.

111

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 7

EQc7: DAYLIGHT POINTS POSSIBLE: 3 Intent To connect building occupants with the outdoors, reinforce circadian rhythms, and reduce the use of electrical lighting by introducing daylight into the space.

Demonstrate through computer modeling that illuminance levels will be between 300 lux and 3,000 lux for 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., both on a clear-sky day at the equinox, for the floor area indicated in Table 2. Use regularly occupied floor area. Healthcare projects should use the perimeter area determined under EQ Credit Quality Views.

Requirements Provide manual or automatic (with manual override) glare-control devices for all regularly occupied spaces.

Table 2. Points for daylit floor area: Illuminance calculation New Construction Percentage of regularly Points occupied floor area 75% 1 90% 2

Select one of the following three options. Option 1. Simulation: Spatial Daylight Autonomy (2–3 points) Demonstrate through annual computer simulations that spatial daylight autonomy300/50% (sDA300/50%) of at least 55%, 75%, or 90% is achieved. Use regularly occupied floor area. Healthcare projects should use the perimeter area determined under EQ Credit Quality Views. Points are awarded according to Table 1.

Calculate illuminance intensity for sun (direct component) and sky (diffuse component) for clear-sky conditions as follows:

Table 1. Points for daylit floor area: Spatial daylight autonomy New Construction sDA (for regularly Points occupied floor area) 55% 2 75% 3 AND

•

Use typical meteorological year data, or an equivalent, for the nearest available weather station.

•

Select one day within 15 days of September 21 and one day within 15 days of March 21 that represent the clearest sky condition.

•

Use the average of the hourly value for the two selected days.

Exclude blinds or shades from the model. Include any permanent interior obstructions. Movable furniture and partitions may be excluded.

Demonstrate through annual computer simulations that annual sunlight exposure1000,250 (ASE1000,250) of no more than 10% is achieved. Use the regularly occupied floor area that is daylit per the sDA300/50% simulations.

Option 3. Measurement (2-3 points) Achieve illuminance levels between 300 lux and 3,000 lux for the floor area indicated in Table 3.

The sDA and ASE calculation grids should be no more than 2 feet (600 millimeters) square and laid out across the regularly occupied area at a work plane height of 30 inches (760 millimeters) above finished floor (unless otherwise defined). Use an hourly timestep analysis based on typical meteorological year data, or an equivalent, for the nearest available weather station. Include any permanent interior obstructions. Movable furniture and partitions may be excluded.

Table 3. Points for daylit floor area: Measurement New Construction Percentage of regularly Points occupied floor area 75% 2 90% 3 With furniture, fixtures, and equipment in place, measure illuminance levels as follows: •

Option 2. Simulation: Illuminance Calculations (1–2 points)

112

Measure at appropriate work plane height during any hour between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.

•

Take one measurement in any regularly occupied month, and take a second as indicated in Table 4.

occupied spaces require a large amount of exterior shading for the majority of south-, east-, and westfacing glazing.

•

For spaces larger than 150 square feet (14 square meters), take measurements on a maximum 10 foot (3 meter) square grid.

•

For spaces 150 square feet (14 square meters) or smaller, take measurements on a maximum 3 foot (900 millimeters) square grid.

This turned out to be the most problematic credit in the entire study. This is due to the stringent requirement for ASE. In order to not surpass the 10% threshold, the project would need an exorbitant amount of tuned exterior shading devices. Interestingly, the density of exterior shading devices is so effective at keeping incident solar radiation off of the façade that it shifts the heating and cooling loads and actually creates a slight increase in annual energy costs compared to the LEED Platinum strategy for energy-efficiency measures without the shading devices. For these reasons, the exterior shading devices – and thus credit compliance – is not sought in any of the LEED certification strategies in this study. Please note that the project has window treatments and the daylighting assessment indicates that the project otherwise still maintains sDA in excess of 75%.

Table 4. Timing of measurements for illuminance If first measurement is take second taken in … measurement in … January May-September February June-October March June-July, NovemberDecember April August-December May September-January June October-February July November-March August December-April September December-January, May-June October February-June November March-July December April-August

Hard Costs The exterior shading devices at the density required to achieve the performance thresholds of this credit would come at a major cost increase. Additional hard costs: $1,892,264 Soft Costs There is a considerable amount of work in analyzing daylighting performance and also documenting this credit. As such, the authors assumed that a dedicated daylighting consultant would be engaged for the project. Otherwise, there would still be a considerable increase in LEED soft costs for the Architect or an engineer, to take this on.

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment Option 1 was pursued for this credit. Presuming that effective solar control is deployed (a strategy for energy performance as well) with an optimized fixed shading system, a lighting analysis using Radiance demonstrated that the sDA and ASE performance thresholds could be achieved.

Additional soft costs: $12,000 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Item 081: EA Synergy (Item 032: Exterior Shading Devices) The existing project design does not lend itself to achievement of this credit. The arrangement of the daylight apertures and their proximity to the regularly

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

113

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 8

EQc8: QUALITY VIEWS POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To give building occupants a connection to the natural outdoor environment by providing quality views.

Assessment The current building is designed with two central circulation towers including stairs, chases, bathrooms, and mechanical rooms. Adjacent to these circulation towers there are rows of individual offices that have full height walls, so they do not have direct views, but they have side-windows next to the doors to allow daylighting. By using shorter partitions in the open office cubicle spaces, we were able to bring views deeper into the office and allow for numerous types of views. The perimeter spaces of this building all meet the views credit requirements. Every corner office meets the requirements of view type 1, and all the perimeter spaces have good views of flora, fauna, movement, sky, as well as views of objects 25 feet away.

Requirements Achieve a direct line of sight to the outdoors via vision glazing for 75% of all regularly occupied floor area. View glazing in the contributing area must provide a clear image of the exterior, not obstructed by frits, fibers, patterned glazing, or added tints that distort color balance. Additionally, 75% of all regularly occupied floor area must have at least two of the following four kinds of views: •

multiple lines of sight to vision glazing in different directions at least 90 degrees apart;

•

views that include at least two of the following: (1) flora, fauna, or sky; (2) movement; and (3) objects at least 25 feet from the exterior of the glazing;

•

unobstructed views located within the distance of three times the head height of the vision glazing; and

•

views with a view factor of 3 or greater, as defined in “Windows and Offices; A Study of Office Worker Performance and the Indoor Environment.”

Item 082: Ensure Quality Views The building itself meets the requirements of this credit. The Furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE) in some cases impedes views in a way that would be detrimental to ensuring quality views (and effective daylighting for that matter). We are assuming that had this credit been pursued during the design process, adjustments to the current plan could have resulted in achievement of this credit by specifying FFE that retains views. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Include in the calculations any permanent interior obstructions. Movable furniture and partitions may be excluded.

Additional soft costs: $0 Views into interior atria may be used to meet up to 30% of the required area.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

114

LEEDv4 BD+C - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CREDIT 9

EQc9: ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To provide workspaces and classrooms that promote occupantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; well-being, productivity, and communications through effective acoustic design.

Residence, hotel or motel room Retail Standard office Executive office Conference room Office, conference room Mechanical equipment room

Requirements For all occupied spaces, meet the following requirements, as applicable, for HVAC background noise, sound isolation, reverberation time, and sound reinforcement and masking. HVAC Background Noise Achieve maximum background noise levels from heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems per 2011 ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Applications, Chapter 48, Table 1; AHRI Standard 885-2008, Table 15; or a local equivalent. Calculate or measure sound levels.

Retail

Retail Standard office Executive office Conference room Hallway, stairway

50 45 50

Occupied area

50 50

Reverberation Time Meet the reverberation time requirements in Table 3 (adapted from Table 9.1 in the Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings29).

For measurements, use a sound level meter that conforms to ANSI S1.4 for type 1 (precision) or type 2 (general purpose) sound measurement instrumentation, or a local equivalent.

Table 2. Reverberation time requirements Room type Application T60 (sec), at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz Apartment and â&#x20AC;&#x201D; < 0.6 condominium Hotel/motel Individual room < 0.6 or suite Meeting or < 0.8 banquet room Office building Executive or < 0.6 private office Conference < 0.6 room Teleconference < 0.6 room Open-plan < 0.8 office without sound masking Open-plan < 0.8 office with sound masking Courtroom Unamplified < 0.7 speech

Comply with design criteria for HVAC noise levels resulting from the sound transmission paths listed in ASHRAE 2011 Applications Handbook, Table 6; or a local equivalent. Sound Isolation Meet the composite sound transmission class (STCC) ratings listed in Table 1, or local building code, whichever is more stringent. Table 1. Minimum composite sound transmission class ratings for adjacent spaces Adjacency combinations STCC Residence Residence, 55 (within a hotel or motel multifamily room residence), hotel or motel room Residence, Common 50 hotel or motel hallway, room stairway

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2010.

29 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, U.S. Green Building Council, and

115

Performing arts space

Laboratories

Church, mosque, synagogue Library Indoor stadium, gymnasium

Classroom

Amplified speech Drama theaters, concert and recital halls Testing or research with minimal speech communication Extensive phone use and speech communication General assembly with critical music program Gymnasium and natatorium Large-capacity space with speech amplification —

Assessment The authors considered each component of this credit.

< 1.0 Varies by application

Item 083: HVAC Background Noise Sound isolators and duct liners. This requirement is met by focusing on mechanical system design with measures such as careful placement of fans and mechanical systems, insulating ducts, and using lowvelocity air delivery or displacement ventilation. These measures are no- or low- added-cost when pursued early in design, and they offer integrative energysavings and air-quality benefits. Additional sound vibration isolators and noise control systems, however, can represent an added cost. The pricing exercise did yield some considerable costs associated with adding sound isolators and duct liners.

< 1.0

< 0.6

Varies by application

Item 084: Sound Isolation It is anticipated that the curtainwall system would be the greatest impediment to achieving the credit’s sound isolation requirements. Under the LEED Platinum strategy, this project would implement an upgraded curtainwall system, which would help achieve the sound isolation criteria. This credit is only pursued as part of the LEED Platinum strategy. As such, the cost premium associated with upgrading the curtainwall is captured by item 031.

< 1.0 < 2.0 < 1.5

< 0.6

Sound Reinforcement and Masking Systems Sound Reinforcement For all large conference rooms and auditoriums seating more than 50 persons, evaluate whether sound reinforcement and AV playback capabilities are needed.

Item 085: Reverberation Time The original building design team did make an effort to mitigate sound transmission on this project. In order to meet the STC requirements, interior wall types W2, W4, and W8 would need to go to deck (W4 currently does). Please note that the assemblies would all need 5/8” type X gypsum board and 25 ga steel studs.

If needed, the sound reinforcement systems must meet the following criteria: •

Achieve a speech transmission index (STI) of at least 0.60 or common intelligibility scale (CIS) rating of at least 0.77 at representative points within the area of coverage to provide acceptable intelligibility.

•

Have a minimum sound level of 70 dBA and must

•

Maintain sound-level coverage within +/–3 dB at the 2000 Hz octave band throughout the space.

Item 086: Reverberation Time The existing project generally achieves the reverberation time criteria. As such, this is considered a cost-neutral item. Item 087: Sound Reinforcement and Masking Systems There are no spaces with 50 or more occupants. The existing project features a sound masking system. If the current project had pursued LEED, the project team could have issued a performance spec to align with this criterion. This is considered to be a costneutral item.

Masking Systems For projects that use masking systems, the design levels must not exceed 48 dBA. Ensure that loudspeaker coverage provides uniformity of +/–2 dBA and that speech spectra are effectively masked. Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

116

Hard Costs Because the LEEDv4 version of this credit requires full compliance with the scope of this credit, it was determined to be one of the most expensive credits in the rating system.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit. Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Additional hard costs: $166,585 Soft Costs A fee for an acoustic consultant would be appropriate for this credit. Additional soft costs: $11,650

117

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 1

IDc1: INNOVATION POINTS POSSIBLE: 5 Intent To encourage projects to achieve exceptional or innovative performance.

•

Pilot (1-3 points) Meet the requirements of Option 2.

•

Exemplary performance (1–2 points) Achieve exemplary performance in an existing LEED v4 prerequisite or credit that allows exemplary performance, as specified in the LEED Reference Guide, v4 edition. An exemplary performance point is typically earned for achieving double the credit requirements or the next incremental percentage threshold.

Requirements To achieve all five innovation points, a project team must achieve at least one pilot credit, at least one innovation credit and no more than two exemplary performance credits. Option 1. innovation (1 point) Achieve significant, measurable environmental performance using a strategy not addressed in the LEED green building rating system.

Identify the following: •

the intent of the proposed innovation credit;

•

proposed requirements for compliance;

•

proposed submittals to demonstrate compliance; and

•

Assessment A wide range of potential innovation credits were considered for the Indy-HPB study. Priority was given to credits that offered high value at minimal additional costs. Ultimately, the team arrived at the following innovation credits:

the design approach or strategies used to meet the requirements.

•

IDc1.1: Green Building Education

•

IDc1.2: Occupant Comfort Survey

•

IDc1.3: LEED O+M Starter Kit

•

IDc1.4: Purchasing – Lamps (O+M Credit, Exemplary Performance)

•

IDc1.5: Pilot Credit EQpc44: Ergonomics Approach for Computer Users

AND/OR Option 2. pilot (1 point) Achieve one pilot credit from USGBC’s LEED Pilot Credit Library AND/OR Each of these innovation credits were posted and available to LEEDv4 BD+C projects as of May 30, 2019.

Option 3. additional strategies (3 points) • Innovation (1-3 points) Defined in Option 1 above.

118

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 1

IDc1.1: GREEN BUILDING EDUCATION POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To provide public education focusing on green building strategies and solutions.

provide documentation demonstrating the development of a second component, such as a signage program, a case-study, guided tours, an educational outreach program, and/or a website or electronic newsletter.

Requirements To take advantage of the educational value of the green building features of a project and to earn a LEED point, any approach should be actively instructional. Two of the following three elements must be included in the educational program: 1.

•

A comprehensive signage program built into the building's spaces to educate the occupants and visitors of the benefits of green buildings. This program may include windows to view energysaving mechanical equipment or signs to call attention to water-conserving landscape features.

The development of a manual, guideline or case study to inform the design of other buildings based on the successes of this project.

An educational outreach program or guided tour could be developed to focus on sustainable living, using the project as an example.

Must be information about the LEED project under review. (For instance a [Commercial Interiors (or CI)] project cannot use the docs from the base building LEED cert.)

•

Suggested options with suggested supporting documentation: a signage program (electronic examples), a case-study (pdf of the hardcopy), guided tours (a script and our stop description drawing), an educational outreach program (detailed narrative and supporting document), and/or a website (pdf of the website) or electronic newsletter pdf of the hardcopy).

•

Screenshot of the project’s performance score in the Arc platform and a photograph of the performance score display and any related signage

Copy of the signed Green Business Certification Inc. services agreement from the Arc platform

Document a second component of green education from the options above

Credit language © U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved. Assessment There are a number of avenues through which a project team may work with an Owner to fulfill this scope and intent of this credit. There are a range of costs that could be incurred, depending on the nature of the signage package, the manual, and/or the outreach program.

Additional Guidance • Must include comprehensive (address at least one credit or prerequisite in each category applied to the project) information about the LEED strategies used in the building/tenant space in each traditional component. •

Projects using the Arc platform for a Performance Score, must provide the following:

The intent of this study is to assess the costeffectiveness of LEED certification. Consistent with this intent, the authors endeavored to identify the most cost-effective pathway for each LEED credit – including the Innovation credits, which often have a broader, less-defined scope. As it relates here, the project team assumed that the Owner would elect for a case study to submit to USGBC and scheduled guided tours. Item 088: Green Building Education Program There is enough flexibility within this innovation credit that is can accomplished without impacting the design and/or construction costs. This is considered a costneutral item.

If the project team has a strategy that has an educational quality that differs from the above information, it can be included as one of the two required components of an educational program and will be evaluated upon its merits. Also

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

119

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional soft costs: $0 Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

120

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 1

IDc1.2: OCCUPANT COMFORT SURVEY POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To assess building occupants’ comfort.

Requirements Establishment None

Assessment This Innovation credit calls for the Owner to commit to performing a survey and implement corrective actions based on the survey results.

Performance Administer at least one occupant comfort survey to collect anonymous responses regarding at least the following: •

acoustics;

•

building cleanliness;

•

indoor air quality;

•

lighting;

•

thermal comfort; and

Item 089: Occupant Comfort Survey The nature of this credit is such that it can be accomplished without impacting the design and/or construction costs. It would involve developing and administering an occupant comfort survey and also defining a protocol for taking corrective measures in response to the survey results. This is considered a cost-neutral item for the purposes of this study. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

The responses must be collected from a representative sample of building occupants making up at least 30% of the total occupants.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

Document survey results. Develop and implement a corrective action plan to address comfort issues if the results indicate that more than 20% of occupants are dissatisfied.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Perform at least one survey and implement corrective actions. At a minimum, perform one new survey at least once every 2 years.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

121

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 1

IDc1.3: LEED O+M STARTER KIT POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Requirements The revised LEED O+M Starter Kit is a collection of LEED O+M credits that BD+C projects can use in the Innovation in Design credit category.

Prerequisites and credits in the O+M rating system are divided between Establishment and Performance requirements. Establishment requirements are physical assets and policies that can be documented and approved once, and do not generally change substantially over time. Performance requirements involve cyclical actions or ongoing tracking during the Performance Period. Many of the Establishment requirements are included in the BD+C rating systems. The LEED O+M Starter Kit includes credits and prerequisites with Establishment policy requirements that are not included within the BD+C rating systems, as shown below. •

SSp Site Management Policy

•

MRp Ongoing Purchasing and Waste Policy

•

MRp Facility Maintenance and Renovations Policy

•

EQp Green Cleaning Policy - (Option 1 only)

•

EQc Integrated Pest Management

Assessment This Innovation credit prompts Owners to establish policies for green operations. The authors have experience with these policies and understand them to not typically create an additional operations and maintenance burden beyond what a facilities team would already experience through standard procedures for site management, facility maintenance, cleaning, pest management, and/or ongoing purchasing and waste policies. Item 090: Green Cleaning and Site Management Policies The authors assumed that green cleaning and site management policies would be adopted in response to this credit. In any event, the nature of this credit is such that it can be accomplished without impacting the design and/or construction costs. This is considered a cost-neutral item. Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit. Additional hard costs: $0

Stipulations To achieve one ID credit, the required documentation for 2 of the 5 credits must be submitted. Projects may pursue a maximum of 2 ID credits using O+M Starter Kit credits.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit. Additional soft costs: $0

Teams are only required to implement the Establishment components of the credits, Performance components are optional.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Achievement of the O+M Starter Kit credits is specific to the BD+C review only. For an eventual O+M certification, the policies or plan will need to be submitted for review and approval at that time.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

122

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 1

IDc1.4: PURCHASING - LAMPS (O+M CREDIT, EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE) POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To establish and maintain a toxic material source reduction program to reduce the amount of mercury brought onto the building site through purchases of lamps.

Assessment Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting is mercury-free. Item 091: All-LED Lighting Package Since the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lighting package is virtually all LED (except emergency EM1, EM2, and outdoor S4E, which are halogen), the existing project easily meets this exemplary performance threshold.

Requirements Must meet the exemplary performance criteria of the base credit (an average 35 picograms per lumen hour or less).

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

Establishment None.

Additional hard costs: $0

Performance Implement the lighting purchasing plan that specifies an overall building average of 70 picograms of mercury per lumen-hour or less for all mercurycontaining lamps purchased for the building and associated grounds within the project boundary. Include lamps for both indoor and outdoor fixtures, as well as both hard-wired and portable fixtures. Lamps containing no mercury may be counted only if their energy efficiency at least equals that of their mercurycontaining counterparts.

Please note that since LEED O+M is a whole building rating system, when attempting an Innovation in Design point for following a LEED O+M prerequisite or credit compliance path the strategy must be applied to the entire project building. Credit language ÂŠ U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

123

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 1

IDc1.5: PILOT CREDIT EQpc44: ERGONOMICS APPROACH FOR COMPUTER USERS POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 o

Intent To improve occupant well-being (human health, sustainability and performance) through integration of ergonomics principles, specifically in the design of work spaces for all computer users*. *Computer users are defined here as full time equivalent staff that utilize a computer for more than 50% of their workday. Occupants that are not computer users are encouraged to be included in the ergonomics strategy but not required. Requirements 1.

ISO 9241-5:1998

•

Education program for move-in and during ongoing operations

•

Process for evaluating and maintaining occupant well-being upon move-in and during ongoing operations to ensure the ergonomics strategy goals are being met. Select appropriate metrics and/or measurements for this evaluation, the evaluation frequency, and how soon after implementation the process will begin.

During the conceptual or schematic design phases:

•

Engage an Ergonomist or Health and Safety Specialist to assist in the development of the ergonomics strategy

•

Make a commitment to integrate ergonomics principles into the overall design

Assessment This credit does require that a team engages an Ergonomist or Health and Safety Specialist to assist in developing an ergonomics strategy for the project. In addition, the Owner must establish an education program for move-in and during ongoing operations.

The Ergonomist or Health and Safety Specialist, in conjunction with the client, must develop a description of the ergonomics strategy that will be implemented and include the following: •

Statement identifying the goals of the ergonomics strategy

•

Description of occupant needs, including occupant characteristics and/or demographics, tasks, and machines, equipment, tools and work aids (METWA’s) used to perform these tasks.

•

Item 092: Ergonomist or Health and Safety Specialist This Pilot Credit would not directly impact the design and construction cost. However, the Ergonomist or Health and Safety Specialist should be formally engaged into the LEED Goal-Setting Workshop (see the Integrative Process credit). This is a role that is not typical on a LEED project. As such, the fee to engage this professional would be recognized as an additional service to the project. The Specialist would also need to be contracted to develop the ergonomics strategy for the project. This strategy would result in some policies that impact occupant engagement, procurement of furniture, and operations/maintenance.

Process for selecting workstation layouts and furnishings based on relevant standards or guidelines. For computer workstations, refer to one or more of the following (or the most up-to-date versions of the following): o

BIFMA G1-2013

ANSI/HFES 100-2007

CSA Z412-00 (R2011)

The Specialist is presumed to have an hourly rate of $150/hour.

124

•

This person will need to take part in a four-hour workshop focused on wellness (plus two hours of travel).

•

This person will need to conduct additional work that is assumed to be 40 hours.

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Thus, the project team will need approximately 46 hours of time from the Specialist.

Additional soft costs: $5,290 Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

The soft cost would be $115/hour x 46 hours = $5,290.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Additional hard costs: $0 Soft Costs Soft costs are comprised of the service fee for the Ergonomist or Health and Safety Specialist.

125

LEEDv4 BD+C - INNOVATION: CREDIT 2

IDc2: LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL POINTS POSSIBLE: 1 Intent To encourage the team integration required by a LEED project and to streamline the application and certification process.

Hard Costs There are no hard costs associated with this credit.

Requirements At least one principal participant of the project team must be a LEED Accredited Professional (AP) with a specialty appropriate for the project.

Soft Costs There are no soft costs associated with this credit.

Operations and Maintenance There are no direct operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with this credit.

Additional hard costs: $0

Additional soft costs: $0

Assessment This credit provides a LEED project team one point for having a LEED Accredited Professional engaged with the project.

Anticipated annual adjustment to operations and maintenance costs: $0

Item 093: LEED Accredited Professional In the case of this project, it would have to be a LEED AP with a Building Design and Construction (BD+C) specialty.

126

LEEDv4 BD+C - REGIONAL PRIORITY: CREDIT 1

RPc1: REGIONAL PRIORITY POINTS POSSIBLE: 4 Intent To provide an incentive for the achievement of credits that address geographically specific environmental, social equity, and public health priorities. Requirements Earn up to four of the six Regional Priority credits. These credits have been identified by the USGBC regional councils and chapters as having additional regional importance for the project’s region. A database of Regional Priority credits and their geographic applicability is available on the USGBC website, www.usgbc.org/rpc.

SSc4: Rainwater Management Required Point Threshold: 2

•

SSc5: Heat Island Effect Required Point Threshold: 2

EQc1: Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies Required Point Threshold: 1

•

MRc1: Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction Required Point Threshold: 1

Soft Costs Any anticipated soft costs are associated with the LEED credit(s) in consideration based on the certification strategy.

Assessment The LEED Regional Priority Credits (RPCs) for this project are as follows:

•

Hard Costs Any anticipated hard costs are associated with the LEED credit(s) in consideration based on the certification strategy.

LTc4: Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses Required Point Threshold: 2

EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance Required Point Threshold: 9

Through the study, it was determined that the project could quality for any of the RCPs. Achievement will vary based on the LEED certification strategy.

One point is awarded for each Regional Priority credit achieved, up to a maximum of four.

•

Operations and Maintenance Any anticipated costs associated with operations and maintenance are associated with the LEED credit(s) in consideration based on the certification strategy.

127

APPENDIX A: LEEDv4 BD+C SCORECARD SUMMARY The following scorecard clarifies which LEEDv4 BD+C credits were pursued for each certification strategy. The scorecard also clarifies which credits were designated a Regional Priority Credits (RPCs) and which prerequisites/credits are designated as design phase (D) or construction phase (C) in terms of their scope. The Change Item(s) refer to the LEEDv4 Project Change line items. Please see Appendix B: LEEDv4 Project Change Summary for more information regarding these line items.

128

129

APPENDIX B: LEEDv4 PROJECT CHANGE SUMMARY The following table provides a summary of every project change identified regarding LEEDv4 BD+C criteria. A brief description is offered for each item. All project change items constitute a scope adjustment and thus a non-construction cost consideration. Additionally, line items with directly associated construction cost impacts have been identified.

project change line items, please refer to Appendix C: LEED Construction Cost Summary of this report. For a tabulated summary of the non-construction project cost impacts (i.e., “soft costs”) of the LEED project change line items, please refer to Appendix E: LEED Soft Cost Summary of this report.

For a tabulated summary of the construction cost impacts (i.e., “hard costs”) of the applicable LEED

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

APPENDIX C: LEED CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY The following table provides a summary of the anticipated initial construction cost differential associated with every line item identified by the study as having an impact on â&#x20AC;&#x153;hardâ&#x20AC;? construction costs. The authors developed this construction cost estimate between March and May of 2019. Cost differentials reflect current market conditions in Indianapolis.

For further information regarding the breakdown of costs per line item, please refer to Appendix D: Detailed Construction Cost Summary of this report.

139

140

APPENDIX D: DETAILED LEED CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY The following table provides a detailed summary of the anticipated initial construction cost differential associated with every line item identified by the study as having an impact on “hard” construction costs. The authors developed this construction cost estimate between March and May of 2019. Cost differentials reflect current market conditions in Indianapolis.

The revised Landscaping figure was arrived to as follows: Quantity: 74,526 (unit: square feet) Installed costs of prairie grass: $2,500 / acre (conservatively assuming the high-end from the range of cost received during the authors’ cost assessment).

For an information regarding the scope encompassed by each line item, please refer to Appendix B: LEEDv4 Project Change Summary of this report.

($3,500 / acre) x (1 acre / 43,560 sf) = $0.08 / sf ($0.08 / sf) x 74,516 sf = $5,961.28

Addendum to Appendix D Please revise the exhibited cost of the following items as noted below.

Revised Landscaping: $5,962 Revised 008 total: ($184,840)

Item 008 Please note that after the Turner cost estimate, the authors revised item 008 such that the 74,516 sf of asphalt would be replaced with native prairie grass. As such, the line item should be revised as follows: Description Earthwork Asphalt Paving Site Concrete Landscaping (Native Prairie) Revised 008 Total

Item 044 The Turner cost estimate did not include the additional electrical panels required to break out the loads on the project. A local engineer and electrical equipment vendor were consulted to price the addition scope. The installed cost associated with the additional electrical panels ($144,000) needs to be added to this item.

Cost $37,258 ($223,560) ($4,500) $5,962 ($184,840)

Revised 044 total: $151,700

141

142

143

144

145

146

APPENDIX E: LEED SOFT COST SUMMARY The following table summarizes the LEED soft costs assumed in the study. This information was derived from figures related to recent LEEDv4 BD+C projects in the central Indiana region as well as the LEED registration and certification fees as posted on May 21, 2019.30

U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Registration and Certification Fees. <https://new.usgbc.org/cert-guide/fees> (accessed 21 May 2019). 30

147

APPENDIX F: HISTORIC COST SUMMARY The following information is transcribed historic cost information about the project used for the Indy-HPB study. Escalation for 2019 has been added by the authors.

148

APPENDIX G: LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) BASELINE MODEL INPUTS This appendix consists of the raw LCA summary report for the baseline model. The existing project’s building information model (BIM) was constructed using Autodesk® Revit. The authors of this study used the Tally plugin for Revit, which was developed by KieranTimberlake. The baseline LCA model was assessed on January 20, 2019. Please note that identifying information about the existing project has been withheld to maintain the anonymity of the project.

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

REFERENCES American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2007. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, U.S. Green Building Council, and Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2010. Cesare, Joel, et al. City of Santa Monica High Performance Building Cost Effectiveness Study. Santa Monica: Integral, 2015. City of Santa Monica. <https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/ Green_Building/SantaMonica_HighPerformanceStudy_Final.pdf> (accessed 21 May 2019). City of Indianapolis. Thrive Indianapolis. 2018. <https://www.thriveindianapolis.com> (accessed 21 May 2019). International WELL Building Institute. The WELL Building Standard v1. Reference Guide (February 2016), 107. MacLeamy, Patrick. “MacLeamy Curve Diagram.” Collaboration, Integrated Information, and the Project Lifecycle in Building Design, Construction and Operation. The Construction Users Roundtable. WP-1202, 4 (August 2004). < https://kcuc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Collaboration-Integrated-Information-and-the-Project-Lifecycle.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2019). Paulson, Boyd C. “Designing to Reduce Construction Costs.” Journal of the Construction Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. <https://www.danieldavis.com/papers/boyd.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2019). State of Indiana. Article 19: Energy Conservation Codes. 2010. <http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T06750/ A00190.pdf> (accessed 21 May 2019). State of Indiana. Executive Order 13-03. 2013. <http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20130206-IRGOV130031EOA.xml.pdf> (accessed 12 June 2019). State of Indiana. Executive Order 13-31. 2013. <http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20130206-IR-GOV13 0031EOA.xml.pdf> (accessed 21 May 2019). State of Indiana. Senate Bill 309. 2017. <http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/senate /309#digest-heading> (accessed 14 June 2019). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly with Data for March 2019. <https://www.eia.gov/ electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf> (accessed 12 June 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's 2012 Construction General Permit (CGP) and Related Documents. <https://www.epa.gov/npdes/epas-2012-construction-general-permit-cgp-and-related-documents> (accessed 24 May 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interactive Water Budget Tool. <https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/ www3/watersense/water_budget/application.html> (accessed 24 May 2019). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. <https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home> (accessed 12 June 2019). U.S. Green Building Council. LEED BD+C: New Construction - LEED v4: No Cooling Tower. <https://www.usgbc.org/node/5586086> (accessed 25 May 2019). U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction. Washington DC: U.S. Green Building Council, 2014. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Registration and Certification Fees. <https://new.usgbc.org/cert-guide/fees> (accessed 21 May 2019).

175

Wilson, Alex, and Melton, Paula. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings.â&#x20AC;? BuildingGreen Report (November 2018).

176