Currently, (My Fair City) San Francisco is having an Board of Supervisers level vote to adopt the 2007 State codes Building, electrical, energy etc.) - but superceeding those by also adopting, and making MANDATORY something called a " Leed's Score" for all permits. (Public and private, commercial, and residential) Which would mandate certain design criteria in excess of our state Title-24 requirements.

Does anyone know exactly what effect this will have on the what's, where's, or how's of our trade?

As it sounds as if this is happening nationally in various places - how is it affecting you?

Please remember this is one of those borderline issues here - So no mention should be made of the who's or why's - just the what's, where's, or how's. Because in 6 months or so I have a Code, Standard, or Rating of some sort to stand up to, and I have no idea what or where it is.... Or how to do it.

[whimper]Help.....[/whimper]

Start here.

http://www.usgbc.org/

I did, (Searched most of the site) can't seem to find more than fluff there so far - nothing recongizable to me as an Energy or Building code yet. Lot of talk about becoming "Certified" - the question is - in what? They also mention some sort of 'Check-lists to Builders/contractors' - Has anyone seen one?

By the nature of the guise... - I am assuming it involves lots of CFL's, T-8's and mandatory controls, even automated window treatments.... But thats speculative - isn't it?

Once upon a time, there was a great country founded on the idea personal liberty. I think it was called "The United States of America." I understand that the concept of personal liberty resulted in that country becoming a great country, with great prosperty for its citizens.

Regrettably, it seems that said country no longer exists.

Feel good legislation.

We have it here too, the GC or owner just hires a consultant to help you through the loopholes so you can get your building built.

In principle it sounds like a good idea, but in practice it does not always do what it was intended to do and building cost more.

Gentlemen, Please no who's or why's.... I was really hesitant on even bringing this up - But on the other hand - WHERE ELSE WOULD I BE ABLE TO?!?

I posted this same thread on another forum (Same policies - even some of the same people) and found a bit of information about these "Check-lists" that tally the score that will eventually spit out your "Rating" - but still looking for black and white "Requirements" that are not so vague. Installation of specific lighting or controls, and where, under what circumstances....

Like:
'All task lighting must be LED, and controlled by motion sensing devices that only sense finger movement in the task area - and the device must only have a delay of 2.5 seconds to shut the fixture off.' (Sounds extreme until you hear the complaints of people soaped up in the shower with our current State standards for bathroom lighting controls)

Or Mandatory pin and socket based dimmable CFL lighting in say - bed rooms? Where it's hard to force feed people these type of things in other rooms as it is now.

On one of the check lists they have "Light pollution reduction" Does that mean Hooded floods, or someone out there with a lumen meter? It sounds like to get the credit for it - it's the lumen meter? (Page 15 of the link above)

What does this "Consultant" do? And what items are mandated in prctice?

Where does all the mercury in the CFL's go when they die or break? Save the electricity, poison the earth.

There may be a future with LED's once they cost $0.30/bulb and can dim.

How come you could power a 4,000 sq ft home with a 60 amp 240v service 40 years ago and today it takes that to power a single hot tub?
The same house needs a 320 amp service and we now have flourescents, dimmers, motion sensors and a lot of nice technology but...

I wholeheartedly agree with what you said there - all of it... Mercury, and the harmonic load too.... (Might lead to a why here - maybe a who too.)

But you can get colored LEDs even what they call "White", and you can get them at 30 cent or so - not the dimmable ones but that will happen soon. Unfortunately, the profit that they are taking and recouping the development of this type of technology is out of control IMO. And the light color is just alien. One of the reasons people don't like - or rightly, don't feel "comfortable" with fluorescent lighting is the color and flicker - Even "Flicker Free" still has flicker, like Lite Beer, or non-fat milk... I can't drink either, and still feel cheated out of the smooth warmth of a real light bulb in certain situations. Thats how I feel about it.... (whoa 2.5 who's)

But really - my internal self-censors are telling me not to debate "generation vs. consumption" as there whould be a 'why' involved.

Anyway - still looking for What's and How's....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design

The consultants help the designers with the local scoring system; tell you where to buy materials, and specific solutions the city will accept. For the most part 90% of LEEDs stakes place on the drafting table and the rest is the contractors.

Locally we have two competing standards LEEDs and a “Green Building Program”, that seem to be morphing together. Neither are actually “required” but good luck on getting a permit unless you play the game they way they want, and some items like duel level lighting, and motion sensors are required. LEEDs has a Bronze, Silver and Gold scoring system and the local “Green Building Program” has a point system.

The consultant will also work with the GC for more LEEDs items if they are required by contract and then we get our marching orders from the GC. For example one local GC will put blue recycle containers on the job for steel, or they will ask us to used materials that have a certain percentage of recycled material in them, or they may have a specific way we handle our spoils.

In the electrical world our LEEDs issue are mostly lighting, ie light capturing (sun), motion sensors, duel level lighting, and high efficiency luminaries, and 100% of that is done during design.

At least with CFLs, the mercury is contained in a hermetically sealed lamp, from which it can theoretically be recovered/reused at end-of-life. Contrast this with the mercury emissions from coal-burning powerplants caused by incandescent lamp use. Those go right up the stack, and end up in the environment.

Until LED technology becomes cheaper, CFLs seem the best way to go for energy efficiency, as long as recycling measures are put in place to handle them.

And how many people are going to bother to recycle them, when the trash can is right there in the kitchen/bathroom/garage?

Zero.

Ian A.

I'm not sure how big a problem the residential user not recycling CFLs would really be. Homeowners aren't curently required to recycle conventional fluorescent tubes, which contain a lot more mercury than CFLs do. Obviously, it would be good if homeowners properly recycled them, (and perhaps money-back offers similar to those used for old printer cartridges would help encourage it), but even assuming that every household CFL goes into a landfill, the amount of mercury released would still be much LESS than would have been released by powerplants to run equivalent incandescents over the lifespan of the CFLs. Any level of recycling by the consumer would make the situation even better.

COMMERCIAL users are required by law to recycle their used fluorescent lamps, and CFLs should be no exception.

Here we use the IECC (International Energy Conservation Code) and I think it achieves a similar end result, but allows us flexibility in design. It isn't as stiff as LEED but allows us to use materials that are widely available. Glad the AHJ adopted IECC instead of LEED.

ITO, you see, there lays one of my problems locally. Architects and Designers who have no interest in codes or standards! EE's who are only paid to do load calc's - stamp the plans - nothing more! And a Planning Dept. that often fails to spot mandatory items on plan check on a consistent or reliable basis.

As well as Customers and GC's who are unwilling or educated enough to hire an outside consultant - or realize that they should. Then I get caught in the middle to force feed them basic requirements in order to comply with just the basics that will enable me to pass inspection for the permit that I have to pull. As the local Inspector in the field is the one with the "No fly Zone" on the matter, but will often not look for the required items (As most of the items finish devices and fixtures) until "Finish". And sometimes that can be a very expensive 'three steps back' from the previous 'two forward'.

So what I and most every other EC does locally is look like the 'bad guy' right up front, as soon as the contract is signed. Throw the plans back to whom ever, 'You need more of this, or that, and if you do that you need one of these...' As most are unwilling to educate themselves - I end up doing it, and by the time you get them used to one code cycle, it is on to the next. I really can not tell you how often I get plans where Title-24 part 6 was even considered! And unless you have $500 shoes, and a flamboyant personality it is really hard to get paid for all the design work that you end up having to do for free to keep the progress on the job. (Even jobs with Lighting Designers I often have throw the plans back, and explain what they missed...)

So with this LEED's thing... It sounds like there will need to be some sort of additional third party to tell you what your recycling bin and vagaries of Building, Plumbing, HVAC and Electrical options are? What happens when your client base is unwilling to forebear this additional, expensive and seemingly unnecessary individual?

They will build elsewhere.

Good point, but I got a kid on the way and a morgage to pay.

Mark,

I am glad you posted this, as I have not heard / seen anything regarding this LEED Score -vs- Contractors' Licensing.

I have seen the LEED term tossed around here and there, but nothing about licensing qualifications has been mentioned at the CSLB or the CBC sites (including the Energy Commission pages + all other Title 24's for the CCR).
Then again, I was not really looking for this stuff, so LEED qualification may be "buried" somewhere on one of the california sites.

If Non-Residential Standards in your area will be "Stricter" than the current Code Cycle for T24 Part 6, chapters 4 and 5 (2005 cycle), than you have a lot to deal with!

Indoor Lighting Compliance ("LTG-C") has changed dramatically, from the previous 2001 cycle, and now includes verification of installed devices forms to be filled out and followed before C.O. is issued.

Outdoor Lighting Compliance ("OLTG-C") is a new and separate chapter, with compliance forms and closeout forms.

What's really odd is the Residential Compliance (Lighting only).
Found this out just recently when performing some "paperwork" (plans, load calcs, etc.) regarding a 4plex Apartment my Father is doing.

There are no _Maximum_ Lighting Power figures per areas (Non-Residential has about 20 areas with watts per square foot maximums); but there are requirements for high efficacy Lighting in specific location - and allowances for use of low efficacy lighting in certain areas, if controlled via automatic devices.

I imagine the remainder of the Residential Compliance points (Envelope / Fenestration, HVAC, Plumbing) have been totally beefed up, as viewed by the previous code cycle.

A job I am finishing up (Non-Residential) has Electric Resistance Heating elements specified in the Fan Coils (Split System).
The MEP sets were approved by the City's Outsourced Plans Examiners, and the City also approved them.
Thing is, this particular City's Inspection staff is really paying attention to energy compliance, so let's see what happens when Final Inspection comes along!
Something will raise flags, when the Inspector sees 100 Amp, 3 Pole disconnects and 1" Conduits feeding the F.C.s - but who knows, maybe this will go unnoticed!

Anyhow, please keep me informed on the LEED situation, and I will search myself.

As Scott (Electure) said:



This is exactly what businesses will do or contemplate!

My views on this whole Energy thing run too deep (and enter the "Dale Gribble" conspiracy angle on several occasions).
Prior to the 2001 energy fiasco, the T24 part 6 compliance _DID_ work! AND resulted in a higher quality of Lighting + Cooling - along with reducing the level of natural resources demand, the output pollutants, and even the demands on the Power Generating Plants in California (not to mention the demand required from "Grid" purchased KWHs).

Now things are all screwed up, and I for one am PISSED!!!

Scott

E57,

I am guess I am a little confused as to why your local inspector is inspecting design issues instead of code issue. If you have a sealed set of drawings approved by the local city review process then how can they expect you as the electrician to build it any differently? To some extent wouldn’t you be exposing yourself to redesign a job and to build it other than it was designed? Sure you might re-route some feeders or balance the panel better but not change fixture and equipment types or rework the load calcs. We are talking about sealed drawings here, and you are not the engineer.

Yes I know there is a note on most plans where the engineer says something to the effect that no matter what they put on the plans, you must build it to code. This however does not get the designer off the hook for a faulty design, no matter how hard they pretend it does. You are licensed to build the project to NEC and local building codes, the engineer is licensed to design the project to NEC and local Design Criteria; there is a difference.

I cant stress this strongly enough: For contracting to work as a business model, you must have in writing a clearly defined scope that you go into proposal with and later becomes part of your contract. Any design changes that are not part of your scope are considered a change in scope and are subject to a price increase.

Just my 2 cents but 50% of project management is good spin, and the better it is the less you sound like the bad guy to the owner and GC.

Good points, ITO.

Has anyone encountered this LEEDS stuff already? If so, what changes / effects were there in the electrical aspect of the job?

I got a lot of good feedback on the Mike Holt site on a duplicated thread from people who seem to have dealt with this commercially:
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=88443

Nearest I can tell, without going out to take some "Certification" in it, or purchasing additional codes prior to final approval from the DBI etc. - is that it is 'electrically' simular to title-24, but goes further into recycling on the job site, and a little more draconian on the energy calc's. Otherwise without purchasing it, the standard seems pretty darn vague IMO!

Right now I have not heard much else about it - the Mayor has not responded to my letters yet....

But my main fear is that a vague code like this will further compound situations that I often find myself in already.

Sure - some engineer has done and filed his stamped calc's already on A.2, but E.1~6 are completely non-compliant design. (they seem to be really hands off on the design end of it...) Then I get stuck force feeding people lighting and controls not shown on the drawing in order to pass my inpection. (Due to the fact that Planning Dept. ~ who should be red-lining the plans - just plain ol' skips that step.) Then I get stuck having to throw the plans back to the Arch. or Designer requesting one that does comply. They in turn look at me like I have 3 heads, and have never heard of such a thing.... Which happen to be the first things our Inspectors look for at final. It's a real PITA!

I usually start off with a vague but clear (IMO) RFI - 'Lighting plan does not comply with Title 24 part 6 - please advise.'

Or likewise: 'MEP.1~4 Outlet locations, and quanities not compliant to CEC 210.52 - Please advise.'

It's about 50-50 that I get someone who even knows what I'm getting at, and doesn't need every bit of it explained to them. And a percentage of those who do get it, are trying to get me to skirt it for them, to give the customer what they actualy want - as opposed to what the State is telling them they have to have.

One thing that does sound interesting about this whole thing - if it passes muster - is that because this type of thing is so far reaching into every trade on the job - it will be up to the GC to hire some Hemp Suited goose-stepper consultant to play the bad guy instead of me... Or at least for the "Green Issues" - But I'll probably get stuck explaining the NEC to them....

"Yes - you need more outlets, and no - they are not recycled!"

Nearest I can tell without buying the code yet, as it is not approved yet.... Is that it will be simular, but a little more 'reaching' than Title-24 in calc's and lighting.

Some of the compliance things sound a little 'out there' though...

Like: Outdoor light pollution being measured at eye level by the foot candle. I wonder how thats gonna be done in a dense city with street lights and traffic????