LEED 2012 – 3rd Public Comment – Guide to Key Changes and Forum

I 100% agree with Ellen, Melissa and Mara. A decent proportion of my job, and virtually all of my billable work, comes from LEED documentation. Greatly increased costs for LEED documentation could well mean that I'll be looking for a new day job!

I do support many of the increased stringencies in LEED 2012. They are necessary to continue to push the market. What is needed, in my opinion, is incrementally increased stringency WITHOUT greatly increased documentation. Already, the major critique I hear of LEED is that it requires significant time and cost to document for only minor environmental improvements. (Look at much of the discussion revolving around the DOD "ban" on Gold and Platinum projects.) LEED 2012 gives significantly more weight and justification to this critique.

There are many credits within 2012 that are contributing to the overall increase (a doubling?) of documentation time. Here's a list of a few that I feel fall into this category (caveat: I haven't been able to read all of the 3rd comment period credits): Sensitive Land Protection, Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses, Quality Transit, Bicycle Network, Site Assessment, Protect or Restore Habitat, Indoor Water Use Reduction (because of new process and appliance requirements), Cooling Tower Water Use, Water Metering, Virtually all of the new MR credits, Low Emitting Interiors (Yikes!).

I don't mean to imply that all of the increased documentation is without merit-- I'm sure some of it is absolutely necessary for the increased stringency. Still, much of it of isn't absolutely necessary. And worse, some of it doesn't create much/any environmental benefit.

I would implore credit writers to simplify requirements and documentation to the maximum extent possible. Credits/Prereqs should be easy to understand, and straightforward (if not easy) to document. Options should be related and limited. Calculations should be easy and understandable.

I think my clients will understand and accept increment increases in stringency. Most will not accept a doubling of my fees.

I was just about to add a similar comment when I saw yours.

I appreciate some of the direction that LEED 2012 is taking, as it is really the monumental shift since v1.0. However, given the time/cost required for documentation, LEED will absolutely lose significant market share for at least three years. Perhaps this is a desirable strategic move for USGBC, but I think that they may be underestimating the cascading impacts, e.g. government bodies no long requiring it, or even prohibiting it. Are we ready to lose much of the support that we have worked for all these years?

Also, not only will documentation take more time/money, but in some cases I'm not convinced that the resulting achievements will actually yield increased performance.

Ellen,

Every LEED consulting professional I've spoken with feels the same way.

I would be surprised if all of these changes didn't result in a significant increase of the cost of certification - and not for the actual "being more green" changes - just for the additional analysis/paperwork!

I am not sure why the USGBC/GBCI has decided to head in this direction. We are very concerned.

It is difficult - given the avenues available for communication with the USGBC - to communicate this concern. I am very happy to discuss with you any ideas you have.

Best,
Melissa
mwrolstad@e4inc.com