Log in

LEED 2012 – 2nd Public Comment – Energy & Atmosphere (EA) Section

Key changes in the the Energy & Atmosphere (EA) section of LEED-NC (part of LEED BD&C) in the second public comment draft of LEED 2012 are discussed below.
August 1, 2011

Do you have comments or questions on this draft? Discuss them below with your fellow LEED professionals. Substantive comments posted here during USGBC's second public comment period  will be submitted to USGBC and considered "official" public comments.

More information on LEED 2012 certification and the second public comment

Energy and Atmosphere (EA)


Major Changes

Eliminated in the first LEED 2012 draft, the Fundamental Refrigerant Management prerequisite is back. The actual credit language is basically unchanged from LEED 2009.

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

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

Go premium for $12.95 »

The Optimize Energy Performance credit (1–18 points, in a change from 1–19 points in LEED-NC 2009) is largely the same in this draft in terms of credit language, but the aggressiveness in the point scale that we observed in the first LEED 2012 draft is largely gone. In this second draft, points start at a 12% reduction for new construction (same as 2009, down from 13% in the first 2012 draft), and go up to 46%—down from 48% in LEED 2009 and from 70% for the first 2012 draft. Note that as explained below under the prerequisite, the calculation method has changed, so these percentages are not directly comparable. Details requiring project teams to use the energy modeling process to influence design—rather than using models only to check compliance after the fact—remain in this draft.

USGBC has completely overhauled the Demand Response credit (1–2 points) introduced with the first draft, in response to industry criticism. Key changes are the elimination of on-site generation as an option to earn the credit; more focus on automation technologies, including the addition of manual/semi-automated as well as fully automated demand response options; and additional guidance on process, including initial assessment, training, and financial analysis.

More aggressive point thresholds introduced in the first draft for On-Site Renewable Energy (1–3 points) have been scaled back from the first draft. A top threshold of 25% in the first LEED 2012 draft is now 10%—also down from 13% in LEED 2009. However,  point allocation is reduced from LEED 2009’s 1–7 points, and judged on that basis, the point thresholds are about twice as aggressive.

Green Power and Carbon Offsets (1–2 points) has a more aggressive point thresholds than LEED 2009: 50% for 1 point, 100% for two. As suggested by the new name (in LEED 2009 and previous drafts the credit is simply “Green Power”), the credit now applies to total energy use, not just electricity use.

Minor Changes

Arguably the most important LEED prerequisite, Minimum Energy Performance is remarkably unchanged from the first draft. As introduced in that draft, the new LEED 2012 draft calls for a combination of energy cost and source Energy Use Intensity (EUI) to serve as the key measurement.

The Refrigerant Management credit (1 point) has some apparently minor wording changes. Point allocation is down from 2 points in LEED 2009.

What do you think of the proposed changes to EA? Please post your comments and questions below.


Add new comment

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


February 14, 2012 - 5:07 pm

Will there be a change in code for the baseline? Currently, LEED 2009v3 is using Appendix G of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, will 2012 jump to 2010 for baseline? This will make achieveing points for this credit almost impossible for projects in the Louisiana region. It's just too hot and humid down here.

February 16, 2012 - 1:29 pm

Jason, the new required controls for 2010 will include:
- 50% of receptacles to be controlled via the occ sensors. Not a simple thing with most lighting at a different voltage than the receptacles.
- Manual on, auto off control. Not just the simple function of wiring the switch thru the sensor control like normal.
- Daylight harvesting for fixtures near windows or skylights.
- facade & landscape lighting controlled separate from parking so they can be turned off from 12am to 6am.
- Reduce advertising by 30% after hours.
- Fuctional testing of all controls.
- Multi-level lighting in some locations.
- Advanced controls incentive. Allowing more connected load if a more complex lighting system is installed. (Manufacturers had a hand in this)

February 15, 2012 - 11:49 am

The lighting control portion of ASHRAE 90.1 2010 is not that much different than 2007, but 2010 does add a new requirement of having 50% of office receptacles (electrical outlets) to be on automatic shutoff. That requirement will more than double the amount of control equipment needed in an office building.

The lighting density requirements are more aggressive too, but LED technology is making that more feasible now. Hopefully LED technology will continue it downward trend in cost.

February 15, 2012 - 11:33 am

My big concern with 2010 is the added complexity. I'm a big believer in making designs simple. The amount of controls for lighting will give a maintenance man a nightmare when he's told to troubleshoot a problem. How many EC's just wire it up and walk away without ever programing?

February 15, 2012 - 10:17 am

I will be watching the decision on which edition of ASHRAE 90.1 will be implemented for LEED closely. I work for a New Orleans based MEP firm and humidity is a major component here for the HVAC design. The 2007 to 2010 ASHRAE changes require more MEP equipment to be installed. The key word is "require." Our firm has been designing to many of the 2010 standards already as it is good industry practice in our climate, but there are Owner's that do not wish to have the more complicated HVAC systems in their buildings, but still want to be LEED Certified. I will be interested to see how LEED balances requirements with options on these sort of things. I have been involved in LEED since 2.1, and at times the requirements (not options) of LEED do not appear to favor humid climates.

Trane has a great video newsletter on the changes to 90.1. I can post a link to it, but I am not sure if this board allows that.

February 15, 2012 - 9:33 am

Change is always hard. Many of our projects are doing more than 40% to 50% better than 2004 and 2007 so 2010 should not be difficult for those doing a good job now. If you are designing marginally performing buildings it will present a challenge which always implies an opportunity. I also hope that this limits bad design like Bill's glass boxes, no daylighting, marginally performing HVAC while encouraging more renewables.

Heat and humidity won't stop designers from credit achievement. The inertia of the status quo and lack of imagination and design skill is what we should be concerned about.

February 15, 2012 - 8:33 am

All signs point to yes. The draft language currently says 90.1-2010 for LEED v2012. And yes, 90.1-2010 is a significant jump over the previous version. I don't think most people realize what's coming until they actually are forced to design to it. The designers will start screaming next year when they understand its impact. I'm hoping this will kill the glass box design. But it will be difficult for everyone.

September 29, 2011 - 1:56 pm

It would be helpful if there were more than two options for climate zones when using Labs21 benchmark: 1) site zone 2) the nation. If there are not enough peer buildings in 1), you are forced to use 2) the national database. There are several climates that are relatively similar in the west that a similarity algorithm needs to be developed when not enough buildings are in a climate zone. It would make a lot more sense to compare buildings in Reno and Sacramento than Reno and Sacramento, Houston and Minneapolis as with the national pool. This algorithm would compare heating and cooling degree days with a dew point factor included and solar loading, for example. A list of secondary comparable climate zones as an intermediate filter would be helpful.

September 28, 2011 - 10:20 am

There is some controversy around the new prerequisite, EA PR 2, but I would like to thank the USGBC for recognizing that the current ENERGY STAR mandate does not further the organization's core mission: Market Transformation. There are so many worthwhile projects that have been halted by the 2009 requirement. When the idea is to change behavior, the USGBC is 100% making the right decision in opening the system up to projects that can show a 20% and implement a variety of energy saving measures + practices. Instead of setting an unreasonably high bar for entry, especially for those of us working in the Southeastern United States, the USGBC is encouraging meaningful behavior changes that will ultimately reduce pollution and mitigate Climate Change...the big picture is more important than the stipulation that this option in some way degrades the integrity of the system. In the O+M community where I live, all of the APs I know are for this change...most of the comments from the first period have been negative, but I cannot help but to think that this feedback represents a small, loud minority...I will continue to support this forward thinking, big picture move on behalf of the USGBC - it's the right move to make - thank you for making it and for keeping the option in. I look forward to seeing it in the final draft.

September 29, 2011 - 10:10 am

So glad to hear that - I am really excited about the direction the technical committees are going with 2012, the EA section in particular. Thanks so much for your response!

September 28, 2011 - 11:33 am

Music to my ears Elizabeth. I have been pushing for USGBC to head in this direction for years now. I am heartened to see that you recognize that the mission should be the driving force and not some nuanced concern regarding Energy Star. The technical committees are in alignment on this issue but as you say there are some vocal folks who don't agree. Hopefully this option survives the rest of the process.

September 15, 2011 - 9:48 am

I had posted this comment during the first public comment period, but there was not much in the way of response, so I wanted to bounce it off this group for feedback - I am curious about the new requirements for documenting 9 different specific strategies / analyses - I recognize the benefit of increased integration, but I am curious about why this is required under this credti. If I have six strategies that can get me to 50% energy savings, is that better than nine strategies that get me to 50%? Shouldn't those requirements be in the Integrated Design section? I think the point strategy for increased performance based on more different investigations should be incentive enough, and I am concerned that this will require more documentation without necessarily providing better results. Thoughts?

November 3, 2011 - 12:06 pm

If you are already doing the modeling studies during design this requirement would not add any addtional overhead related to LEED documentation. The details will need to be worked out but I would envision simply sending copies of your early stage modeling reports. It will also be possible to submit other studies to substitute for the early stage models as long as you can make connections to decision drivers during design. In this case a narrative would be used to describe the process (which would possibly add to the LEED documentation burden).

Of course in the case of projects with 60% savings it is not worse. Those projects are very few and far between when submitted for LEED. This requirement is directed at the vast majority of the market not doing design phase studies. I would suggest that the vast majority of 60% savings projects did design phase modeling or have done it in the past.

We want to use LEED to drive higher and higher levels of performance (that is its purpose). As you say you would have trouble getting to the higher levels of performance without design phase modeling. I am still blown away by the fact that the market does not get this. I never even imagined that the majority of folks would do validation models at the end. It just demonstrates that most folks simply do not even understand the purpose of modeling. I do not know of another more effective way to have them get it than to make it a requirement.

The idea of rewarding process elsewhere has merit but I am concerned that it would not be enough of a driver to affect the market change needed.

November 2, 2011 - 2:31 pm

I have to say that although this seemed perfectly reasonable when you initially posted it, I have been pondering it for a bit and still have concerns. I think the new credits being put in place for integrative design process are the right place to incentivize early integration and simulation. My experience is that for any project where we want to get higher levels of energy savings we need to do these early models in any case. But by adding this requirement here in EAc1, it adds to the overhead of doing LEED Documentation. If I do a set of studies to get to 60% energy savings, that is great. But now I will need to document more for LEED for the same results. Hypothetically speaking, if I do a business as usual "model too late" process and still save 60% of energy, is that worse than if I do a set of studies earlier on and still get to the 60%? My experience is that without the studies I won't get to 60%. But I believe that it should be equivalent in the eyes of LEED to get the savings regardless of process, and then reward the process elsewhere. Thoughts?

September 15, 2011 - 10:19 am

The increased points for higher performance are not enough of an incentive to do design phase modeling for most projects in my experience.

The purpose of requiring at least some design phase modeling was to end the practice of doing a model at the end solely for the purpose of determining LEED points. It needs to be in the modeling credit to have this effect.

I agree that we may not see better results on some projects and the requirements are somewhat arbitrary. The purpose of modeling is to guide decision-making during design. Too much of our industry has curcumvented this purpose becasue LEED allows us to do so. The credit must encourage/require projects to use modeling for its intended purpose.

If anyone has a specific suggestion about how best to encourage/require project teams to use energy modeling during the design process (and not just at the end) I'd love to hear it.

September 14, 2011 - 11:31 pm

EA PREREQUISITE: MINIMUM ENERGY PERFORMANCE - ASHRAE 2010 is a necessary move for LEED 2012. I like the reduced options. Very simple and straight forward.
EA Pre: Fundamental Refrigerant Management - Do we really need this still?
EA CREDIT: OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE: Seems like a logical increase, it is good that the increments were backed off. They were too aggressive for this next step. The extended options for Option 2 depending on size are also an improvement over the last version.
EA CREDIT: DEMAND RESPONSE: This is a great new credit. The old LEED did not have an avenue at tackling peak demand. This is perfect.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION: I like the 1% minimum threshold for Renewables, and as many thresholds as you can get. It seems that this should be something that most projects should seek to engage in and those that do should be rewarded because these are expensive points and important for the green economy.
EA CREDIT: ENHANCED REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT: Essentially the same as before. No comment.
EA CREDIT: GREEN POWER AND CARBON OFFSETS: I like the move to 50% and 100%, make much more sense than 35% and 70%. What I hate is having these tied to the Energy Model. The energy model is always changing during the 4 reviews so you have to buy the green power at the very end when the owner doesn't want to spend it and you have to have this conversation 15 times. It was great the way CI did it… 32 kw x the square footage got you 16 kw per year for 2 years for 100% of the project and you got the credit and the ID point and you were done! There should be a way to make this THAT simple for every project. Bascially, the USGBC should publish the CBECS list in the reference guide, you pick your project type, do the math and you can get these points the day you finalize the floor plan.

September 6, 2011 - 4:46 pm

The lighting power density table and such is completely gone. If I have an interior build-out with more than 100,000 sqft, I'll have to do a full energy modeling for the space for the prerequisite even. Then looking at the percentages for the points, I keep wondering if this won't be a huge disadvantage for older existing building since building envelope will basically be neutral and the existing HVAC system may not be that efficient compared to ASHREA 90.1-2010 or if this is existing to remain too, than what? I have to achieve at least 6% up to 32% energy savings overall with lighting and plug loads?? I have worked on enough LEED projects to know that having envelope and HVAC basically equal will hurt you overall a lot and that's going to discourage our clients from going into an older building or even existing building. I'd like to hear what others think about that.

September 13, 2011 - 12:14 pm

Not sure if you would be ale to mix Options. I don't think so but it is a good point for the TAG to consider.

As they say the point is not the points. If this forces projects to re-examine assumed fixed parameters then LEED is doing its job of market transformation. If that means some project don't go through with it then so be it in my opinion.

Also note you have the option of applying previous studies as an option to the specific modeling of an individual project. I agree that we don't have to make this any more complicated than necessary to have the desired effect.

September 13, 2011 - 11:48 am

Right. I also notice that EA P2 and EA c1 don't really seem to be aline with each other. If I'm reading it correctly, an office space with more then 100,000 sf will have to use option 1 the modeling for EA P2 to show 6% improvement but could than for EA c1 use option 2 Advanced Energy Design Guide also to gain points?

Also EA c1 option 1 I'm trying to think of 6 measures focused on load reduction other then HVAC. Well the envelope isn't an option unless you consider automatic interior blinds.So lets see what else is possible. Hot water tankless vs tank; lighting controls (occupancy, daylight), plug loads with smart plugs, energy star equipment.
I might be missing something, but I think 6 measures is overkill for LEED CI and also the software and ASHREA let's you use in most cases a percentage discount for occupancy controls. Well what I'm trying to get to is, that the limited options in a LEED CI project a lot of times aren't truly simulated anyway. It's a set discount. That can be done much easier. Time I can actually improving my efficiency. The only reason for doing it would be to see, if a combination of measures would get me to the next point level.

September 13, 2011 - 10:50 am

Also check the EAc1 credit language. You will need to do design phase modeling in order to earn any points. You will not be able to just do a model at the end as this defeats the whole purpose of modeling.

September 13, 2011 - 10:20 am

I checked again, if I have an office space of more then 100,000 sf than I have only the option to do a model. all other option are restricted to office space less than 100,000 sf.

Marcus, I agree with you I think there should be an option for existing buildings. I also think that a building with more then 100,000sf should still be able to at least meet the prerequisite without modeling. I'm all for raising the bar, but having worked on LEED NC/CS and LEED CI projects I know how much more work and time the modeling adds to the project and for a LEED CI projects it's not really adding value to the project. I will have the same result following the prescriptive requirements for the credits and prerequisites as they are now. Also if I do actually replace parts of the envelope or major pieces of equipment than I may have to certify as LEED NC (major renovation) anyway because of the new MPR guidelines.

I am working on a 260,000 sf office interior at the moment and it's very typical office space for a large cooperation. So the kind of space that makes a difference because of the large scale. This project stretches over 2 years, is done in several phases, and does get changed a lot even during construction, because of developments in the economy, business sectors and such. I have two options than. I do a split review and redo everything for the construction review OR I submit for combined review at the end. The costs and time involved really doesn't leave you an option. We already opt for submitting all those projects for combined review even now under the 2009 version of LEED. Changes and what goes along with it for LEED are made throughout. If we were required to do an energy modeling, I will do it at the end of the project. Otherwise my costs for the LEED documentation are going to prevent my client from doing it at all. Modeling at the end of the project defeats the purpose, I know that. But for me it's going to be, do I do LEED this way or not at all.

September 12, 2011 - 6:17 pm

I think you make a good point Susann. Looks like you are at least partially right - if you have a project over 100k sf and the HVAC doesn't comply with the 90.1 minimum efficiency this leaves the AEDG out and if you don't meet the Core Performance requirements for any system covered you will need to do a model.

Once a space gets this large a model will likely start to make economic sense however. Perhaps we need a major renovation column like BD+C to account for the potential penalty for existing buildings.

September 12, 2011 - 5:39 pm

The Energy Model path is just one option. You'll notice that Option 2 - the "Prescriptive Compliance Path" has the lighting power density path you mention. You can get up to 6 points for various lighting strategies via Option 2 in the proposed ID&C rating system.

August 18, 2011 - 10:46 am

First off, I apologize for the rather long-winded comments, but after having reviewed the proposed changes to the EA Credit: Green Power and Carbon Offset provisions, I believe there are several areas that require serious attention and illustrate USGBC’s lack of understanding of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and carbon offsets. Left unchanged, these changes could result in LEED certification being more expensive to achieve and may discourage participation from international users.

I. Exclusion of Carbon Offsets as a Means of Offsetting Scope 2 Emissions

While I understand that some companies prefer to purchase green power, in the form of RECs, to address their Scope 2 emissions, I do not understand why USGBC has excluded carbon offsets as a means of addressing Scope 2 emissions. Given that it is irrelevant from the point of view of mitigating climate change where greenhouse gas emissions are reduced/avoided/sequestered, it does not make sense to limit the application of carbon offsets to just Scope 1 emissions. This is recognized throughout the voluntary carbon market – as evidenced by thousands of companies that offset their scope 2 emissions with carbon offsets - and even in the context of LEED, as demonstrated by numerous cases where USGBC has permitted, through the alternative compliance path, companies to use certain carbon offsets against Scope 2 emissions to earn Green Power points.

Furthermore, I feel it is peculiar to require international projects that wish to address their Scope 2 emissions to use RECs, which are inherently a U.S.-based instrument. RECs are not well known outside the United States and are not a global tradable environmental instrument. For these reasons, I feel that left as is, this provision would make it unnecessarily difficult for international projects to attain Green Power credits.

Acknowledging USGBC’s desire to promote grid-connected renewable energy within its Green Power and Carbon provisions, I would urge USGBC to allow the application of carbon offsets against Scope 2 emissions, however limit the type of offsets used to those generated by grid-connected renewable energy. This is in line with the intent of Green Power credits, as such offsets would encourage the development and use of grid-connected, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis. They also have the added benefit of ensuring an incremental and fully additional increase in renewable energy capacity and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Lastly, such a provision would allow U.S. projects that prefer to use offsets over RECs to do so – while supporting grid-connected renewable energy – and provide international projects an option for using an instrument that is more global in nature.

II. Redundancy of Gold Standard and Green-e Climate

USGBC has modified their rules to only allow carbon offsets that are certified to the Gold Standard or are Green-e Climate approved. The Center for Resource Solutions’ Green-e Climate program already endorses the Gold Standard so mentioning the two side-by-side seems redundant and confusing.

I propose USGBC either:

• Identify a positive list of acceptable offset standards on their own, using the standards endorsed by the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) as a guide; or
• Make reference only to Green-e Climate.

III. Requirement that All U.S. Projects Must Use U.S.-based Offsets

USGBC is proposing to limit U.S. projects to U.S.-based carbon offsets. Again, this provision is inconsistent with the fact that from the point of view of mitigating climate change, it is irrelevant where greenhouse gas emissions are reduced/avoided/sequestered. The carbon offset market is designed to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions, beginning with the lowest-cost opportunities. By limiting U.S. projects to U.S.-based offsets and therefore a smaller pool of lower cost emission reductions, the USGBC is in effect increasing the cost for projects to attain LEED certification.

Furthermore, carbon finance is an invaluable source of financing for sustainable development in low and middle-income countries – whether it is for financing life-saving fuel efficient cookstoves or financing much needed reforestation. USGBC’s proposal to limit U.S. projects to U.S.-based carbon offsets would run counter to the originally stated purpose of carbon finance, which is to assist industrialized countries in fulfilling their emission reduction obligations as cost-effectively as possible in exchange for the transfer of investment to developing countries for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and promoting sustainable development.

As such, I propose that USGBC allow the use of carbon offsets from projects anywhere in the world in an effort to reduce the cost of LEED certification, increase LEED participation and promote sustainable development worldwide.

IV. Requirement that All International Projects Must Use CDM-approved Offsets

Again, USGBC is proposing to limit the use of carbon offsets – this time in the context of international projects – in a way that seems arbitrary and inconsistent with the basic principles of climate science. While, on its surface, I understand why USGBC may think it is appropriate to limit international projects to CDM-approved offsets, in practice this provision makes little sense and will only hinder the carbon offset market and LEED participation.

CDM-approved offsets (otherwise known as CERs) are meant to be used, at least in the first instance, by regulated entities under the Kyoto Protocol. These entities are generally in industrialized countries, excluding the US due to their decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It does not, however, stand to reason that just because CERs are not generally used by US firms, they are used internationally, across all other countries. Many international LEED projects can be found in Asian countries, for instance, that are not signatories of the Kyoto Protocol and therefore are not normal consumers of CERs. Limiting all international projects to only CDM-approved offsets would therefore be like ‘trying to put a square peg in a round hole’.

Furthermore, CERs trade at a premium to offsets of equal quality in the voluntary carbon market – due to the compliance-driven nature of CER demand - and therefore limiting offset use to CERs among international projects would dramatically increase the cost of LEED certification and decrease LEED participation.

Finally, by limiting international projects to CDM-approved offsets, USGBC would generally forgo the opportunity to support small-scale, community and innovative emission reduction projects that characterize the voluntary carbon market and the standards that support it. The Gold Standard, for example, which is known for its emphasis on co-benefits and used almost exclusively outside the US, would not be eligible for use by any LEED projects under these proposed provisions.

For the reasons mentioned above, I urge USGBC to allow the use of carbon offsets certified to any one of the standards agreed upon under Comment II (see above).

September 12, 2011 - 4:26 pm


I guess they can all work in the proper context.

I can tell you first hand that it is much, much harder to write good credit language than it is to criticize the volunteer work of others. So try to stay constructive folks, most of us want to achieve the same end.

September 12, 2011 - 3:48 pm

I'm still working on my tone too. I've tried constructive, negative, scientific, behind the scenes, challenging, shaming. When I find out what tone results in a positive change I'll be sure to share it with everyone.

September 12, 2011 - 3:17 pm


Procliming USGBC's "lack of understanding" and the generally negative tone of your comments really don't help to get your otherwise reasonable points across. These points would certainly be better received if offered in a helpful, instead of a critical, manner.

The folks who write these credits do not proclaim to be the ultimate experts on every subject. This is why we seek comments from others who are.

September 12, 2011 - 3:10 pm

An international version of LEED is in the works. LEED 2012 is, I think, intended to be for US projects.


August 22, 2011 - 9:48 am

Perhaps the US standards keep showing up because it benefits US businesses.

August 19, 2011 - 3:16 pm

I just want to add to one of your statements. I'm working on international projects a lot and it's almost silly how I have to go about the RECs. I purchase RECs from a Company in the US, which has it's origin in the UK and buys the actual RECs from sites all over Europe, because there are obviously more renewable energy producing facilities.
Overall I do have to agree in regards to making LEED more applicable for international projects. I have read through most of the new rating system and keep seeing other US based standards, guidelines. This is not going to help and certainly will make my job harder. I already keep hearing from my European clients: "Why should we show compliance with this US standard? We have more stringent laws that cover these requirements." And quiet frankly: "That is true in many regards."
On the last Greenbuild 2010 the statement during the international forum was to become more applicable to international projects. Unfortunately that's most definitely not what is happening in the new version of LEED 2012.

August 3, 2011 - 8:43 am

I was under the impression from Chrissy Macken from USGBC during the first public comment phase that all aspects of LEED were up for comments.

Under the Energy section of LEED-Homes I made the comment, "Have a total maximum kBTU or kWh per year for a single family home and another value for apartment/condo type buildings. It should not matter how many bedrooms. It should not matter how much square footage. Have an absolute total design energy. If someone wants a larger house then they need to add more insulation or put a solar system on the roof to offset the extra energy a larger house uses."

And got the response of, "This proposed change is not within the scope of this phase of development. Your recommendation will be considered during the next overall LEED upgrade."

Like I've said before, these Public Comment phases only appear to be for proof checking and occasionally fishing for ideas to use years from now. This is extremely frustrating coming from an organization that professes how this process is so open and concensus based. No matter how many public comments I make or how many years I make them I do not feel I have a voice in USGBC.

February 15, 2012 - 9:17 am

Yes ASHRAE 90.1-2010 has been proposed as the standard for LEED 2012.

I know you have smart architects and engineers in LA who will figure it out!

February 14, 2012 - 5:05 pm

RE: EA Optimized Energy Performance
Will there be a change in code for the baseline? Currently, LEED 2009v3 is using Appendix G of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, will 2012 jump to 2010 for baseline? This will make achieveing points for this credit almost impossible for projects in the Louisiana region. It's just too hot and humid down here.