LEED Minimum Energy Performance: v4.1 vs v5.0
This prerequisite establishes the baseline energy performance your building needs to clear before LEED will consider the rest of your scorecard. Required for all BD+C project types. The mechanics shifted between v4.1 and v5, and if you're deciding which version to pursue, the changes are worth understanding.
LEED v4.1: The ASHRAE 90.1-2016 Era
LEED v4.1 ties you to ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (with errata). You need to comply with all mandatory provisions, then pick one of three paths:
Prescriptive Compliance follows Sections 5 through 10. Simple in theory. In practice, most projects have something that doesn't fit cleanly into prescriptive requirements, which sends you to one of the other options.
Energy Cost Budget Method (Section 11) compares your design's projected energy costs against a baseline budget. Straightforward if your project fits the method's assumptions.
Performance Rating Method (Appendix G) is where most projects pursuing optimization credits end up anyway. You're modeling the building, calculating a Performance Cost Index (PCI), and documenting that your PCI is at or below the Performance Cost Index Target (PCIt). You can use either cost or GHG emissions metrics, which gives some flexibility depending on what your client cares about.
The mandatory measures exception is worth knowing: if Appendix G provides a methodology for demonstrating savings between your Proposed Building Performance and Baseline Building Performance for a specific mandatory provision, you can model your design as-is instead of forcing compliance with that measure. This keeps you from contorting the design to satisfy a prescriptive requirement that the performance model would show doesn't actually matter.
Renewable energy only counts if it's on-site or on-campus and meets Section G 2.4.1 requirements. Off-site renewable energy agreements don't help here, regardless of how legitimate they are.
LEED v5: Two Options, One Eventual Mandate
LEED v5 gives you two paths initially, then takes one away depending on when you register.
Option 1: ASHRAE 90.1-2019 (with addendum cr)
Option 2: ASHRAE 90.1-2022
Projects registering before January 1, 2028 can choose either. Projects registering on or after that date must use Option 2. This isn't a generous grace period so much as an acknowledgment that some projects already in flight shouldn't have to backtrack.
Both options follow Section 4.2 compliance paths from their respective ASHRAE versions. The real change is in how you can demonstrate performance if you're using Appendix G.
The Future Source Energy Metric
This is the headline shift. Instead of cost-based modeling, v5 explicitly supports a future source energy metric. Here's how it works:
Replace every reference to cost in your modeling with future source energy. Use an electric site-to-source conversion factor of 2.0 for U.S. projects. That 2.0 factor reflects projected grid improvements, the theory being that the grid will get cleaner over time. Projects outside the U.S. can use a lower national average if applicable.
Then swap out the Building Performance Factors. ASHRAE's standard tables get replaced with the BPFs derived for the future source energy metric. The v5 reference guide provides these by climate zone and building type. They're not universal fudge factors. A warehouse in climate zone 8 gets a different BPF than an office in climate zone 3A, because the energy dynamics are completely different.
Building Performance Factors for ASHRAE 90.1-2019 (Option 1)
If you're using Option 1, you'll reference Table 1 for your BPFs:
Multifamily
0.74
0.69
0.73
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.71
0.70
0.63
0.70
0.71
0.69
0.68
0.70
0.70
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.74
Healthcare/hospital
0.72
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.74
0.71
0.72
0.74
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.71
0.74
0.73
0.80
0.73
0.77
0.78
0.79
Hotel/motel
0.72
0.71
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.73
0.73
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.70
0.72
0.70
0.70
Office
0.62
0.63
0.61
0.62
0.58
0.60
0.57
0.62
0.55
0.55
0.61
0.57
0.58
0.61
0.59
0.58
0.60
0.54
0.58
Restaurant
0.65
0.62
0.63
0.61
0.62
0.58
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.67
0.66
0.66
0.70
0.70
0.68
0.73
0.72
0.74
0.77
Retail
0.57
0.54
0.53
0.53
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.52
0.50
0.56
0.57
0.53
0.59
0.58
0.56
0.53
0.60
School
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.54
0.57
0.51
0.49
0.48
0.51
0.52
0.51
0.53
0.51
0.53
0.50
0.51
0.58
Warehouse
0.28
0.30
0.24
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.23
0.20
0.33
0.26
0.28
0.40
0.32
0.29
0.44
0.38
0.40
0.44
All others
0.65
0.62
0.64
0.62
0.57
0.54
0.57
0.56
0.58
0.59
0.57
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.61
0.64
A few things stand out in this table. Warehouses have notably lower BPFs across the board, which makes sense given their simpler energy profiles. Healthcare buildings trend higher, reflecting their 24/7 operation and more complex HVAC requirements. The climate zone variations are meaningful but not dramatic for most building types, with the exception of warehouses where heating-dominated climates (zones 5-8) show significantly higher BPFs.
Building Performance Factors for ASHRAE 90.1-2022 (Option 2)
If you're using Option 2 (or you're registering after January 1, 2028 and have no choice), you'll use Table 2:
Multifamily
0.64
0.59
0.62
0.60
0.61
0.59
0.61
0.60
0.49
0.57
0.59
0.56
0.55
0.57
0.57
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.60
Healthcare/hospital
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.65
0.66
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.62
0.64
0.62
0.69
0.63
0.68
0.69
0.70
Hotel/motel
0.65
0.63
0.64
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.62
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.56
0.58
0.56
0.56
Office
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.54
0.49
0.52
0.49
0.52
0.45
0.46
0.52
0.47
0.48
0.51
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.45
0.49
Restaurant
0.61
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.54
0.58
0.59
0.57
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.65
0.64
0.63
0.67
0.66
0.69
0.72
Retail
0.47
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.39
0.36
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.45
0.43
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.46
School
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.53
0.48
0.46
0.43
0.48
0.47
0.45
0.49
0.46
0.46
0.44
0.44
0.48
Warehouse
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.20
0.21
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.30
0.22
0.25
0.36
0.28
0.25
0.40
0.34
0.36
0.40
All others
0.58
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.50
0.47
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.55
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.55
The 90.1-2022 BPFs are universally lower than the 90.1-2019 values, which reflects the fact that the baseline building in the 2022 standard is more efficient to begin with. Your proposed building needs to achieve greater improvement to hit the same performance target. This isn't USGBC making things arbitrarily harder; it's keeping pace with evolving code requirements and industry practice.
Option 2 only: If you're using ASHRAE 90.1-2022, you can also document performance using site energy or source energy via Informative Appendix I. This gives another route if future source energy doesn't align with how your client thinks about performance.
What Changed and Why It Matters
The shift to future source energy is a decarbonization play. Cost doesn't track carbon emissions particularly well, especially as electricity pricing varies wildly by region and utility structure. Future source energy aims to align energy performance with actual environmental impact, or at least a better proxy for it.
The 2.0 conversion factor is optimistic. It assumes the grid gets cleaner. Whether that happens on the timeline USGBC is banking on is a different question, but that's the assumption baked into the metric.
The staggered implementation (2028 cutoff for mandatory Option 2) suggests USGBC knows the industry needs time to adjust. Energy modelers need to update software assumptions, teams need to understand what the new metric actually rewards, and clients need to decide if future source energy aligns with their own performance goals.
Practical Differences Between v4.1 and v5
Modeling complexity: Future source energy adds a step. You're not just running the model; you're converting results through a different lens. The BPF tables do the heavy lifting, but your energy consultant needs to know which table applies and how to document the results properly.
Performance targets: The switch from cost to future source energy can shift what measures pencil out. A design strategy that looked marginal under cost-based modeling might perform better under future source energy, or vice versa. This isn't a small technical detail; it can change which efficiency measures you prioritize.
Renewable energy: The rules haven't fundamentally changed between v4.1 and v5 for what renewable energy counts, but the metric shift affects how much credit you get for on-site generation. Future source energy modeling treats on-site renewables differently than cost modeling does.
Documentation: Both versions require clear documentation of your methodology and results. v5 adds another layer since you're potentially using a metric your reviewer hasn't seen a hundred times yet. Budget extra time for the submission to get reviewed carefully.
Which Version to Pursue
If you're registering before 2028 and have a choice, the decision comes down to where your project is in design and what your performance goals actually are.
Already deep into energy modeling with 90.1-2016? v4.1 probably makes sense unless you have a compelling reason to switch. The work is done, the approach is familiar, and there's no performance benefit to complicating things.
Early in design and focused on decarbonization? v5's future source energy metric might align better with your goals, especially if you're already thinking about carbon rather than operating cost. The modeling approach is different, but it's not harder, just different.
Registering after 2028? The decision is made for you. You're using Option 2, which means ASHRAE 90.1-2022 and access to all the metric options v5 provides.
The Bottom Line
Both v4.1 and v5 establish a minimum energy performance threshold. That part hasn't changed. What has changed is how you measure and demonstrate that performance, with v5 pushing toward metrics that better reflect carbon impact rather than cost.
The prerequisite itself remains achievable. Any building with basic efficiency measures will clear it. The modeling requirements are specific and the documentation needs to be defensible, but that's true in both versions. What v5 adds is flexibility in how you think about energy performance, assuming you're willing to work with a metric that doesn't show up on your utility bill.
Last updated
Was this helpful?