Log in

LEED 2012 – Second Public Comment – Guide and Open Forum

Please review the new draft of LEED 2012 and share your thoughts
August 1, 2011

USGBC has opened the second public comment period on LEED 2012, the next version of the LEED rating systems. This public comment period is scheduled to run from August 1st to Sept. 14th.

As with the first public comment period, which opened in Nov. 2011, LEEDuser is here to provide guidance on key changes to LEED 2012 certification, and to provide an open forum for members of the LEED community to understand the changes and weigh in on them.

At USGBC's request, LEEDuser has set up a series of forums on the LEED 2012 draft. These forums are both a chance to register a public comment or comments on the draft, and a place to publicly discuss the draft. Questions and dialogue are welcome and encouraged! (If you prefer to send your comment to USGBC directly, see the link below.)

Please review the new draft of LEED 2012  and share your thoughts with the LEEDuser community and USGBC below!

LEEDuser's guide to key changes in LEED 2012, second comment

• Integrated Process (IP)  (see below)

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

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

Go premium for  »

• Location and Transportation (LT)• Sustainable Sites (SS)• Water Efficiency (WE)• Energy & Atmosphere (EA)• Materials & Resources (MR)• Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)• Performance (PF)• Innovation (see below)

• Regional Priority (see below)

Key USGBC links

Download LEED 2012 Rating Systems DraftsOfficial Summary of Changes in LEED 2012 Draft

And now, our guide to key changes in the new LEED 2012 draft, starting with Integrated Process.

LEEDuser's Guide to the Integrated Process (IP) Section

The entire Integrated Process category remains as a new section (the first section of LEED—move over, SS). So does the first IP credit. The name of that credit has changed in this round, from “Integrated Process” to the more cumbersome Discovery – Analyses to Support Integrative Process (1 point). The new version of this credit is much more cleanly worded, and is organized by topic—Energy Load Reduction, Water Systems, and Site Assessment—instead of phase (for example, “Iterative Analysis during Conceptual Design). Teams would have to complete analyses in all three categories, and identify ways to reduce environmental burdens.

A new credit has been added to this section for the second public comment: Implementing Strategies (1 point). This credit appears to have been birthed when the lengthy requirements for the previous IP credit (now Discovery) were slimmed down. This credit focuses on two key requirements. The first is an analysis of synergies based on assessments performed during “discovery,” and comparison of at least two alternate designs. The second is a commitment to use of ongoing feedback mechanisms during building occupancy.

Despite a lot of feedback against the change during the first comment period, a relevant specialty is still required in the new language for the LEED Accredited Professional credit (1 point)—a change from LEED 2009. However, a new requirement that additional team members be LEED credentialed has been dropped.

Innovation (IN)

The Innovation credit isn’t significantly changed in the new LEED 2012 draft, although it is allotted 1–6 points rather than 1–5 as in LEED 2009. Even with that increase in emphasis, the Exemplary Performance path is allocated only 1–2 points (down from 1–3), while the Innovation path retains 1–5 points.  A Pilot Credit Library option, which was not included in the first draft, is reintroduced and given 1–5 points.

As with the first draft, the LEED AP credit has been moved to the new Integrated Process section (see above).

Regional Priority

The draft includes some minor wording changes to the Regional Priority credit, but the overall intent and requirements are the same. As with LEED 2009, this draft allocates 1–4 points to Regional Priority.

[See the links above for similar guidance to changes in the other sections.]

What do you think of these changes to LEED 2012? Discuss below!

Tags: 

Add new comment

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

Comments

August 5, 2011 - 12:51 pm

Thanks for your thoughts.
First off, I'd like to clarify that I don't have an issue with the Integrated Design Process. I think it is an invaluable process in creating high performance buildings. I just don't think LEED should provide credits for it.

For those who use Integrated Design already, they will see the value in the process regardless of points provided and will utilize the process to create a better design. In this scenario, the credit is not encouraging anything.

For those not using Integrated Design, I'm not sure the 2 points will be worth the while to attempt the process. I don't think providing another point on the checklist is a good method of discouraging checklist mentality.

Although you make a good point that most of LEED credits are on the honor system, most have some objective measure that could determine if they were acheived or not. This credit's documentation does not have anything other than the design team's word.

I would disagree that other credits don't make the building better. If you have FSC wood, the project is arguably more sustainable than the same project without FSC wood.

Integrated Design is important as a means to an goal (more sustainable buildings), by providing credits for it USGBC is making the process a goal in itself.

August 5, 2011 - 9:30 am

Michael, that's an interesting perspective, but following your logic, couldn't you say the same thing about a lot of LEED credits? Even credits that have a concrete impact on the building, like say daylighting—you can have a building that meets the daylighiting credit that is otherwise not a better building. You could have FSC-certified wood, or recycled content concrete, and not have a substantially better building.

That is the weakness of the checklist approach—pursuing any one of these credits doesn't necessarily create a better building.

However, USGBC (and LEED) are betting that if you earn the prereqs and enough of the credits to get certified, then the building will be substantially greener than average.

Furthermore, having credits like these that reward process should (in theory) get teams OUT of the checklist mentality and into a whole-building approach that could really result in big improvements.

The fact that these are credits and thus optional means that teams that don't want to use such a process, or document one, can skip it and earn points elsewhere. Teams that create documentation for something that didn't happen are being dishonest, and inherent in a lot of LEED documentation is an honor system. We shouldn't get rid of credits in anticipation of dishonest documentation.

What do you think? I thought your argument was interesting enough to try to rebut... I'd be interested in further dialogue.

August 2, 2011 - 5:26 pm

Is expected to the next version of LEED, specially LEED EB O&M, any issue about Energy Quality (ex:, sag, swell, harmonics etc) ?