Log in

LEED 2009 Registration Extended to October 2016

The market needs additional time to prepare for LEED v4, says USGBC, in keeping LEED 2009 registration open longer.
October 29, 2014

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has decided that requiring new LEED projects to register for LEED v4 as of June 2015 was too soon and has shifted that date back to October 31, 2016. In an announcement released this morning, USGBC said that it was giving the market more time to get ready for LEED v4 based on feedback it received during last week's annual Greenbuild conference.

According to USGBC, 61% of respondents to a survey said they are “not ready” or “unsure” if they are ready for LEED v4 and require additional time to prepare. 

USGBC launched LEED v4 in November 2013 as a more rigorous and fresh take on the LEED green building rating system, including new concepts like product transparency, whole building life-cycle analysis, and newer energy standards. The package came with a cushion: leading-edge LEED projects could register for LEED v4 right away, but you could keep registering for LEED 2009 until the window closed in June 2015. Want to play it safe? Register your project now for LEED 2009; upgrade to LEED v4 later when the kinks are worked out.

As of earlier this month, nine LEED v4 projects had been certified (one of which has shared its full documentation with LEEDuser), and 304 had started the process by registering during 2014. That's 15 times fewer than the 4,493 LEED 2009 projects registered to date. Between those numbers, the Greenbuild survey, and other market feedback, USGBC apparently decided it had heard enough and extended the LEED 2009 window another 16 months.

In a press release, Rick Fedrizzi, CEO of USGBC, said, “When USGBC launched LEED v4 last year, we set out with one goal in mind—to raise the bar in a way that challenges the building industry to reach higher than ever before. This is our nature and USGBC and its members’ collective mission. However, the market has requested additional time to prepare for LEED v4, so we are responding. “ 

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for  »

Fedrizzi added, "Our international LEED users, which account for some 50% of new LEED registrations, have also indicated they would like to have more time to move onto the new rating system. This extension will be especially helpful to them.”

The LEED v4 Materials and Resources (MR) credits have caused the most angst for LEED users, with many raising questions about whether the new Building Product Disclosure and Optimization credits are too complicated, not workable, or simply not a good idea.

That credit might get an overhaul. Also at Greenbuild last week, USGBC announced a Supply Chain Optimization Working Group, the charter of which is not confined to the vague Option 3 of Building product disclosure and optimization—material ingredients; it's also tasked with "explor[ing] new and innovative ideas to evolve" all three options of that credit, which includes a variety of programs. (Nadav Malin, president of BuildingGreen, which publishes LEEDuser, has been tasked with facilitating the working group, working with Scot Horst, chief product officer at USGBC.) 

USGBC and the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) have not announced whether the change will impact credentialing, which switched over earlier this year to LEED v4 based exams for LEED Green Associates and LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED APs). Our guess is that there will not be a change here.

Mara Baum, vice president and sustainable design leader for healthcare at HOK, reacted positively to the news. She told LEEDuser, "This will help ease the transition to a very different and challenging system for design practitioners, owners, and manufacturers alike. Progressive organizations will continue their shift towards v4 criteria, while others can continue to advance their projects with v2009. USGBC will continue to develop incentives to encourage teams to either switch to v4 or to substitute v4 credit language where appropriate."

Referring to the 18-month cushion included in the LEED v4 launch, Baum noted, "This is the second time that required registration for v4 has been delayed. The first delay allowed USGBC to put more effort into fine-tuning tools such as the online LEED credit library and Web-based reference guide. Ironically the LEED tools are more advanced at this point than they had been at the release of 2009—it’s the market that isn’t ready yet. The roll out of LEED v4 would have been particularly challenging in jurisdictions that require certification for all buildings, or all buildings of a certain size and/or typology."

What's your reaction to the extension of LEED 2009?


Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.


November 10, 2014 - 10:46 am

This appears to be a decision made at the executive level, rather than a consensus decision.

I couldn't help but note the IPCC report issued the day after the USGBC press release. Are we losing focus on climate issues because the market is not ready for EPDs, etc?

USGBC should immediately ballot an update to the energy standard used by v3. There is no reason to keep letting new LEED projects use an energy standard that will be three iterations old when v3 is finally phased out.

November 10, 2014 - 6:18 pm

YES! This shouldn't wait. LEED keeps getting more and more behind on the energy standard.

November 3, 2014 - 12:25 pm

Thank you all for your comments. USGBC is indeed listening!

I know many comments have mentioned the poll at Greenbuild. While the survey was one factor in the decision, the overwhelming factor is that fewer than 400 projects have registered for LEED v4 despite it being in the market for more than 12 months. In the first 12 months of LEED 2009 being in the market, nearly 5,000 projects had registered. The message that USGBC has received is loud and clear – the market needs additional time.

Extending LEED 2009’s availability for an additional 15 months enables USGBC to work with the broader industry within a longer time frame to drive meaningful and comprehensive change. This move helps ensure that LEED remains the most used green building standard up until that time so that we can continue to drive the most impactful change possible. The additional time also helps international LEED users keep pace with us – which is critical. By the time we fully transition to v4 we will have an even more committed and robust international audience

Many of the comments have also suggested that v4 is on a delay – LEED v4 is not on a delay – it is open and available for use.

We see this to be a great opportunity for leaders to become early adopters of v4. Project teams, owners, and supportive manufacturers are continuing to work on LEED v4, and know they will reap the rewards of being first to market, and will provide leadership for others.

November 19, 2014 - 10:12 am

Any chance of answering some of the outstanding questions addressed here?

November 10, 2014 - 1:23 pm

My concern is that many agencies and companies are pursuing LEED Silver v2009 as a base standard of design. Which is great! Thanks, LEED. Now that it has become standard of practice, LEED Silver is very easy to achieve in a most cases and is no longer an indicator of innovation and sustainable design. By delaying LEED v2009 cutoff, LEED is just maintaining the status quo and deminishing the value of their rating system and their role in the market place of pushing forward sustainable design practices. Of course the industry will whine when LEED v4 becomes mandatory. But, until LEED v4 is forced upon us, the industry will not push ahead on its own. There will be just as many people complaining about LEED v4 in 2016 as there would have been in 2015. But, by 2016, people will also be compaining that LEED v4 is already out of date.

November 3, 2014 - 3:22 pm

Unfortunately, the USGBC's lack of confidence in its own product and unwillingness to challenge and push the industry severely diminishes our ability to move clients to v4 and further, with this announcement the USGBC can expect v4 registrations to evaporate.

November 3, 2014 - 2:52 pm

Well stated Marcus.

I'm going to continue to push projects to stand by the June 15th 2015 date, as while USGBC appears free to change dates based on nontransparent polling and inapplicable historical comparisons, we are just as free to recognize only v4 projects registered after June 15th 2015 as actual leaders.

November 3, 2014 - 1:27 pm

Marcus, very well written.
My added concern is that after all this time with V4 NOT selling in the marketplace that upper management at USGBC is taking a scorched earth policy to try to turn the problem around.

'Working with the market' involves better marketing, better workshops and educational pieces and more involvement of the core volunteers, not stonewalling and opaque communications.

Fully support what you are saying Marcus.

November 3, 2014 - 3:29 pm

Of course there is a major difference - when v2009 was released v2.2 was also not available. If it were there would have been similar results. The comparison is apples and oranges trying to pass as a justification.

The reality is that the vast majority of the market will not significantly start using v4 until it is required. Delaying this requirement will not change this fact. It is human nature to fear the unknown and delay change as long as possible. Up until it is required there will not be a significant market uptake of v4. If v4 is not required its use is being delayed, no matter how you try to spin it.

When there are two versions of LEED available, the market will take the status quo 99 times out of 100. Continuing to reward the status quo is a good strategy for maintaining/increasing market share but at the expense of market transformation. LEED is becoming SQEED (Status Quo in Energy and Environmental Design) IMO.

Leading the market in a direction (transformation) is very different than working with the market to make sure they are ready. I fail to see how the delay of v4 will drive any meaningful and comprehensive change in transforming the market. Keep in mind that this will delay v4 a full four years beyond its original launch date! Requiring v4 will drive change, continuing to delay will not.

October 31, 2014 - 4:42 pm

Can we get a response from USGBC on this? I'm sure they are listening intently to this discussion.

1) How large was this survey? What percentage for each response? Why is this more important than the 86% approval of v4 when it was ratified in an open process per USGBC procedures? If 50% of new LEED registrations are international, how many of these users were included in this survey?

2) What other factors were involved in this decision? Anything relating to the American Chemistry Council? Is USGBC ready for v4? Is LEED Online ready?

3) What happen to the 3 year cycle for updating LEED? Why was discussion of v5 penalized during GreenBuild?

4) Why is an MR credits revision mentioned when delaying v4? When the minimum credit requirement for energy (2 point min.) was revised years ago it never delayed a whole system. It was changed, voted on separately by the USGBC members, and adopted. Should a change to the MR credits delay v4?

5) Where is the openness and transparency? This change appears to go against the Foundations of LEED. Delaying 18 months is a substantial change by prolonging weaker energy and material standards. "Updates cannot be integrated into LEED content unless approved through the LEED balloting procedures. ... Modifications to existing credit or prerequisite language as part of deliberate, next version improvements that change stringency or technical rigor"

I see this a bit like the US Treasury trying to convince people to switch from paper dollars to coin dollars. Why is this even an issue? Just stop printing the paper dollars and people will be ready to use the dollar coins.

October 31, 2014 - 5:21 pm

Bill: I wholeheartedly agree that an extension of this magnitude clearly should have been given more deliberate and careful consideration than the seemingly reactionary response to a dubious poll. Of course openness and transparency have been missing from the USGBC for quite some time now. Case in point the secretive development, confusing and misleading marketing, and attempted implementation of the LEED Dynamic Plaque

October 31, 2014 - 4:57 pm

Excellent post Bill....and the answers are?

October 30, 2014 - 5:51 pm

I'll certainly not be shedding a tear to be losing the cumbersome LEED V3 LEEDONLINE website, with it's slow-loading, Internet-Explorer-only, buggy SAP interface. That's probably the feature of LEED V4 I am most excited about, not having to wait for that spinning ball every time I click on anything on LEEDONLINE. The only thing that was good about V3 LEEDONLINE was that it was better than V2.2 LEEDONLINE.

October 30, 2014 - 5:39 pm

I have thought all along that LEED V4 changed too many requirements at once. I also suspect that numbers of LEED registered projects will drop dramatically once LEED V4 is required. I've done my homework - I'm ready for LEED V4, but an industry that still sends me "LEEDS" [sic] letters documenting recycled percentage in their carpet using the wrong terminology, can't figure out what a 500 mile radius looks like, and balks when I tell them smoking is banned on a construction site certainly isn't ready for a "more stringent" LEED. My opinion is that LEED V4 is an ivory-tower, impractical standard that will dramatically reduce LEED certifications. Yes, there are a few improvements that streamline or simplify requirements, but overall I believe it was a mistake to change so much so fast.

November 3, 2014 - 3:41 pm

That ship sailed. v4 was significantly watered down during the 6 public review phases in the name of too much too fast. v4 was originally going to be launched in late 2012 (called LEED 2012 then). It was delayed so the supporting materials could be developed. Next delay was to give the market time to get used to v4.

Not sure where the ivory-tower part comes from but other than the materials credits it really did not change very much. It is a bit more stringent but I am not sure what is impractical.

October 29, 2014 - 1:59 pm

Considering the track record of the USGBC’s extended sunset dates, aborted launch dates, and lack of connection with the industry it is intended to serve, it is not surprising that the date was moved. Disturbing, yes, surprising, no. What this means of course is that in 2022 we will still be certifying buildings using v2009. During Greenbuild 2014 I attended a roundtable with various CBRE clients representing major property owners in the US and internationally to discuss LEED v4. While we all have issues with elements of v4, the consensus was that it is not as daunting or costly to implement as initially thought, and in some cases our clients have already adopted LEED v4 as their new sustainability standard. If the USGBC waits until the majority of the “industry” is ready, it will never be implemented. Market transformation, at one time the stated goal of the USGC, does not occur by waiting for everyone to be ready.

November 3, 2014 - 4:52 pm

Thank you for your insightful contribution on this Christopher, it is heartening to learn that the good people behind LEED v4 are as frustrated at this development as we are.

I wonder if we will hear from USGBC staff on this, or if all related correspondence will be filtered through their PR team. I can only guess that staff has been asked to remain silent on this issue, as I have heard nothing other than dry factual announcements. LEED was literally founded on the diversity of opinions, and to silence internal critics (if true) would be truly counter to the broader mission.

November 1, 2014 - 12:40 am

Christopher, I'm heart broken that the staff should have been put under this sort of pressure. Many of us on these forums have been working with 'the greatest team on earth' since the beginning and are now fighting as best we can to get these stupid decisions that have recently be enacted by, what seems to be , a small cadre of senior USGBC and GBCI individuals, reversed.
At any opportunity that you get, as a personal message or linked through from this forum, please remind all the great staff that we fully support them and that we will not rest until full transparency has been restored to the USGBC.

October 31, 2014 - 7:31 pm

I don't have any great perspective on motivations for this, but I have it on good authority that this decision is having a significant demoralizing effect on USGBC and GBCI staff, particularly on those who worked diligently for three years to produce v4. The vast majority of the folks who work at USGBC, who were equally shocked by the decision, are incredible individuals motivated by the core organizational mission, but unfortunately this seems to be a calculated business decision made behind closed doors. I'm reminded, perhaps ironically, of the statement that was scrawled on the whiteboard in Brendan Owens' office: "We are not a company."

October 31, 2014 - 4:20 pm

Nor me.....but then again that doesn't really surprise me. Why ask questions of people who you know are going to answer that 'they're ready' when you 'need' the answer to be a negative.

With my tin foil hat on...many thanks Glen...and as a business man running a for profit business, this whole thing, plus the LDP sure smacks of 'panic mode' to me

October 31, 2014 - 3:54 pm

Two other observations:

Of the 3 possible responses to the survey, it seems like "we are ready" was selected more than 1/3 of the time, and was perhaps the most common response. It is odd that this wasn't the primary take-away. If the responses were split evenly between "no" and "I don't know", it could have been reframed: "Only 30% of the market not ready for LEED v4!"

And now, with my tinfoil hat firmly in place, the press release was initially authored by Jay Mehta, and is now attributed to USGBC's Director of Public Relations.

October 31, 2014 - 3:26 pm

Nor I, or anyone I talked to or heard from during or after Greenbuild. Glen likely has the answer above, a poll created to justify a move that was predetermined

October 31, 2014 - 3:03 pm

Didn't ask me either.

October 31, 2014 - 1:29 pm

I had the same head scratching moment about the poll results. Was the poll conducted to justify the move that was all but predetermined, or in the couple days following Greenbuild did the USGBC board sit down with credible results (I would hope they had more to go on that the cherry picked 61% figure) and reach this conclusion?

I would also be curious how poll respondents were selected (to not be complete junk it would have to be representative of the broader USGBC membership). I was at Greenbuild this year and was not offered any such opportunity to chime in on this.

October 30, 2014 - 11:17 pm

What USGBC said about the poll results does not even pass the laugh test. So 61% were not ready or unsure. Well what percentage were unsure. If there were three choices - ready, not ready, unsure - why were the unsure lumped with the not ready. For an organization that prides itself on creating LEED based on science this appears to be a decision based on other issues justified by a very unscientific poll. While I have significant issues with the use of any poll to make this decision, at least make it sound at least remotely scientific. Hopefully the press release writer made it sound worse than it actually was.

October 30, 2014 - 7:20 pm

Marcus. So if the mission of the USGBC is being kicked into touch, what then will replace it? Based on current lack of transparency it will be replaced with nothing that the membership have any involvement with. As to a poll, well as any pollster will tell you, the results entirely depend on what question you ask, how you ask those questions and to whom you actually interview.

October 30, 2014 - 7:08 pm

Gary, is this the end of version 4 as we know it? Theoretically any new version, say version 5, would need to be created and run with only version 4 running...that means that a version 5 wouldn't see the light of day till January 2017!
In reality this capitulation to an unknown sector of 'users' (although the artical above says that the market needs more time...so how can they be 'users'' if they're not using it?) is really a dumming down of LEED new construction
Now tie that to the Dynamic Plaque dumming down LEED EB and we have a series of missteps that the membership never agreed to or where consulted on.
The USGBC have allowed the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' to sideline a Great Leap Forward with version 4 and eviserate an existing program in LEED EB.....for what reason? If we "wait for the market" it will NEVER happen.

October 30, 2014 - 3:13 pm

Hear, hear!

If you took the same poll ahead of the launch if every prior version of LEED, I am sure there would have been similar results. Basing a decision like this on a poll is frankly ridiculous. If this is the basis for decision-making then, I agree Gary, it will never happen.

It certainly appear that the mission is not the USGBC's top priority. If everyone is ready then what are we transforming?

October 29, 2014 - 11:36 am

The “L” stands for leadership. Every LEED version has been painful and caused market outcry, yet the market adapted and great progress was made. Keep in mind that LEEDv4’s original working title was LEED 2012. I saw at Greenbuild solid evidence that manufacturers had earnestly responded to LEEDv4 criteria and competent MEP engineers offered compliant energy solutions using existing technologies. The early adopters are making the transition, but the mass market will not adopt LEEDv4 until it is mandatory. It must be pushed. USGBC used to claim that the codes were the floor and LEED was the ceiling. This delay may reverse that as two years from now, so many codes will have taken exponential leaps forward. Worst of all is the lost momentum toward 2030 goals. With only fifteen years to go, a two year delay is a substantial stumble. Thank goodness for code bodies that realize the seriousness of our mission.

October 30, 2014 - 4:57 pm

One more thing...Not to belabor the point... (too late for that?!)

An example of where LEED fails: An underutilized land parcel in an urban setting that is repurposed as a community garden can't be LEED certified because it a) doesn't contain a permanent structure and b) doesn't have at least one regular occupant.

In my opinion, a project like that should AUTOMATICALLY get a LEED certification. The costs are minimal, but the positive impacts to the community and the environment are immense.

Contrast that example with City Place in Las Vegas which achieved LEED Gold, in a city with no water. There's a big disconnect between what's right and what's LEED.

October 30, 2014 - 4:42 pm

Jerry - Although I see your point, every day in fact. The truth is, we can't rely on the development community to implement change. If stripping the earth of natural resources, ad nauseum, makes a better proforma, they will do it (or at least consider it). The design community needs to influence change, promote change, and advocate for change. THAT part of the USGBC formula is correct, in my opinion. What's wrong is that the focus of LEED has gone from implementing change, to implementing a new score card. Instead of looking at how to affect long-term, sustainable (as in financially feasible and justifiable), and socially responsive changes to the fundamental way the market functions.

The next step for green building should not be in determining whether a project accrues 20 or 21 EPDs, but whether the project will have a lasting POSITIVE impact on society (environment included).

The "currency" we are using to evaluate the success of a project is all wrong. It's still a function of traditional financial metrics, NOI, ROI, simple payback, instead of the much more complex and much more important measure of "total return" - The three Ps, manifest in financial terms. USGBC has an opportunity to use their position, influence and research to develop these metrics. But the window is closing.

October 30, 2014 - 4:28 pm

I think maybe some people are missing the point. The developer's comments ARE the market. S/he wants the brand value of LEED, but does not concede that LEED provides any enduring value beyond immediate lease up. The tool has gotten so complex and costly that most people who "sign the front of the check" don't see value commensurate with cost. The better step would be to start with the market and develop the tools around the demands of leading edge market participants (e.g., developers, owners, facility managers), not "onlookers" like architects and engineers who get paid no matter how the building does economically.

October 30, 2014 - 4:20 pm

Marcus - Exactly. I was just with a developer outside DC, building 12 new buildings. Exactly 2 of which are being certified. When I asked why not the other 10, or why not LEED ND, he said they already build to Silver with no cost implications. Local code requirements are more stringent and building users understand that. The two "marquee" buildings that are getting the LEED treatment are doing so based on tenant demand within the building, but not necessarily justified by a real business case, or real sustainability metrics. It's a "marketing issue" to use his words. All this, right in the USGBC's back yard. They need to open their eyes, stop dwelling on process and deadlines, and develop a system that is fluid and moves with the market. As LEED has grown, the USGBC has also gotten fat and slow. They need to consider a significant change in direction in order to stay relevant, this deadline shift notwithstanding.

There's an important adage in business, "follow the money." Words to live by in this case.

October 30, 2014 - 4:08 pm

And the smart ones asking those questions have a very legitimate point. If any version of LEED that is available for the market to use becomes substantially equal to conventional practice, then LEED ceases to have any relevancy at all. Any project today can attain LEED Silver easily without any cost implications, if the team knows what it is doing. Over 50% of LEED projects attain Gold level certification. The market has virtually caught up to LEED v2009 IMO.

October 30, 2014 - 3:18 pm

Interesting observation Marcus. I hate to keep harping on this, but building owners will ask "why?" when it comes to LEED more and more frequently if it continues to lag behind code changes.

October 30, 2014 - 3:15 pm

In certain respects v4 is already obsolete relative to other standards. By the time v4 is required it will be two full version changes behind ASHRAE 90-1 (2013 and 2016).

October 29, 2014 - 11:22 am

The extension period is too long. It's TWO year from now. Why does the industry need so much time? LEED V4 already took several years, with several public reviews, to develop. It's been online for a full year. It's not new, really. And, it's not dramatically different than V3, in terms of LEED "mechanics". Its changes are primarily moving/bundling/renaming credits and increased stringency.

That said, its emphasis on Transparency & Disclosure in the MR credits is a significant improvement. And a challenge. To accelerate the adoption of LEED V4, I believe the USGBC should focus on the construction materials manufacturing and supply chains. I see these industries struggling with providing compliant, documented products. And many are hesitating... Do you recall about a dozen years ago when contractors would jack-up their bids to supply FSC wood? This wasn't because the material cost that much more. It was an availability issue. The USGBC could significantly gain market acceptance by helping manufacturers understand the MR credits, especially what they need to do to provide compliant products. Does anyone know whether the USGBC has any such programs or initiatives in place to help these industries? I feel this, more than a time extension, would accelerate LEED V4 acceptance.

November 3, 2014 - 4:49 pm

In England we call them a 'folly'

.....a costly ornament with no practical purpose, especially a tower or mock-Gothic ruin built in a large garden or park....

November 3, 2014 - 4:43 pm

Thank you Barry! I've seen the one at USGBC headquarters and the LDP is a beautiful device, although it seems odd to stand behind the launch of this tool in the press release.

November 3, 2014 - 4:37 pm


LDP = LEED Dynamic Plaque....

See in the LEED User forums

November 3, 2014 - 4:33 pm

I hope I'm not alone in not knowing what you mean by "LDP". It sounds important.

November 3, 2014 - 3:55 pm


The crux of your post is really 'education'....or should I say...lack of it. The rot set in some years ago when chapters started to drift away from 'USGBC education' based on a multitude of reasons the primary one being the money division with USGBC.
Instead of wasting millions of dollars on an LDP that eviscerates LEED EB, USGBC should have provided more eduction into the marketplace that would have benefited the broader LEED rating systems and raised all the versions upward.
Too late now. There's no unwinding the proclamation.

October 29, 2014 - 10:01 am

I have not been able to find the referenced press release to share with clients. Please let us know where to find it.
Thank you.

October 31, 2014 - 9:30 am

Here is the direct link - http://www.usgbc.org/articles/usgbc-announces-extension-leed-2009. I found it odd that this was not posted on USGBC's LEED channel or on its home page. I can’t believe that they had bigger news than this for the home page. I had to find it via the Internet as my search terms did not reveal it on USGBC’s site.

October 29, 2014 - 10:12 am

I don't know why the press release isn't posted on usgbc.org yet. In the meantime, you can view it here

October 29, 2014 - 9:48 am

I appreciate the response to concerns about LEED v4, but this puts me in an awkward position. One of the reasons I haven't taken the time to learn about LEED v4 is because I know that in my market, no one will take on LEED v4 until they have to. I was planning to dig into the details sometime next spring. What do I teach those folks who want to take the LEED AP exam - here, study both, but be tested on v4 that won't be relevant for 2 years? The purpose of LEED upgrades is to transform the marketplace. Clients tell me that v3 is worn and tired. We need new challenges. At the very least, LEED v3 should have a transitional upgrade to ASHRAE 90.1-2010. A 3 month extension okay, but 15 is too much.

October 31, 2014 - 5:42 pm


I suspect that USGBC views LEED v4 education and the credentialing exam as a key way to make sure that even as we backslide 16.5 months on market adoption, that we continue to make progress in terms of readiness for v4.

Full disclosure, we just finished our 2nd v4 exam prep course, so I'm sure I see this issue with at least a little personal bias.

October 31, 2014 - 5:11 pm

I hope USGBC is listening and will consider making fixes and upgrades to LEED 2009. It's sat on the backburner with all the push and effort for LEED v4 and if it will be in use for another 8 years, it needs attention.

October 31, 2014 - 5:09 pm

Glen, but if the market is not ready to use V4 then they are not ready for the exam....right now total chaos is beginning to reign at head office if it doesn't already!
Perhaps the USGBC should just drop v4 and the exam in the round file in the corner, cut their losses and upgrade the v3 exam.

October 31, 2014 - 1:36 pm

Regarding the credentialing side of this, I was assured by USGBC yesterday that this will not set back the exams. I do realize the final call likely resides with GBCI, but as they are so closely aligned, this is enough for me to rely on. While it is an interesting question, it would be absolutely counter to trying to prepare the market for v4 to take a step back on the credentialing side.