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

Kath...well hopefully they get reduced GBCI fees...and 'marketleader' status...and....oh and we get a headache!

Barry and all, I don’t doubt the value in the beta testing of this version. Absolutely essential…to LEED, USGBC, GBCI, the market, etc. There was a lot of learning way back when on the pilot for LEED 1, etc.
My question is how to convince an owner (I have three waiting in the wings right now) to let us use their project as a beta. What’s the benefit to them? Do they get to register for free? A complimentary design review?

Hi Barry,
The reference I saw said "test drive the new rating system prior to the launch at Greenbuild", so where is this 1 year V4 pilot with V3 still live through that time coming from?

And for the sake of my poor confused brain. There is a distinction between the v3 platform and the LEED 2009 rating system, so I presume that is the same issue here. That speaking to v4 is a reference to the platform and not the proposed LEED 2012 rating system. Am I understanding you correctly? Why would there be a whole new platform for LEED 2012 anyway? Or do you mean LEED 2012 when you say V4?

Kath, Any beta testing has to help rather than the drop dead requirements of a new version appearing at 8am on a Monday morning. With so many changes a period of calm, clear and concise thoughts about how to make a new version work would be most useful. You and I and a few others started this 'thing' many years ago when it was just single tenant office buildings, now we're pushing the boundaries with the most diverse buildings we can find. Will V4 work in a multi-tenant mixed use, multi ownership leased property as well as in a laboratory...and so on. Another reason would be that it helps those marketleaders really step up and undertake V4 and provide, through venues should as LEED user, with valuable information for others to take further into the marketplace. I see no downside to a 1 year V4 pilot with V3 still live through that time.

LEED 2012 email from communications@usgbc.org on Friday 5/11 calls for formalized beta testing of 2012 by a limited group, as Michelle mentions above. What are the advantages of doing that?

Bill, I think 'vote rigging' is uncalled for. Please keep the conversation based on the content that you and I both know about...not on voting operations.

Well, there has to be a fixed timeline printed...if not we'd still be using pilot versions of everything. Hopefully at GreenBuild there will be plenty of 'presentations' of V4...with enough time to voice our support, or not, in the more public forum. But voted up or down doesn't mean that V4 is going away from conversations we are all currently having...it still stands with USGBC to make the case of why we should vote for it.

The November implication may be foregone because they have never failed a vote.

LEED-ND failed to reach quorum in its initial public vote. USGBC's solution was to extend voting by 3 days and email everyone encouraging them to vote 'abstain' to help them reach quorum. LEED-ND passed and objecting to the vote rigging didn't change that fact.

If the proposed LEED 2012 standard does not pass membership ballot LEED 2009 will remain the active standard until such time as a new standard can be successfully balloted.

No doubt there is a great deal of hope/wishful thinking in the statement 'when LEED 2012 launches in November'

So the most recent LEED 2012 email from communications@usgbc.org which I received on Friday 5/11 starts by saying "LEED users we have heard you" and then promptly acknowledges that "when LEED 2012 launches in November" there will be some mitigation measures like extended LEED 2009 registration and formalized beta testing of 2012 by a limited group rather than the continuous beta testing of LEED 2009 that we are all still doing. The beta testing item begins with a more politically correct "once LEED 2012 has successfully passed ballot" but since it follows the item 1 statement of definitive November launch, it sounds like a formality.

Those are nice suggestions and obviously reflect oversight of the LEED 2012 forum discussion that has been going on. However the overall implication is that launch is a foregone conclusion in November. What are we voting on then?

Thanks everyone for your excellent feedback. I will make it my policy to keep GBCI informed as we go forward.

Melissa, Don't panic...provided the contracts are registered with GBCI, work is progressing, you keep them informed as to the progress on a regular basis, (especially about the date when the design credits will be uploaded) then from previous experience GBCI will not 'drop you in it'. Once the design credits are agreed with GBCI, you are LOCKED in that rating system for the duration. Yes of course if the job drags on 5-10 years then quite rightly the GBCI will get a little upset, but we have found that provided that you keep them informed they will work with you.

Thanks for both comments. Both Phase 2 and Phase 3 of these projects might be compromised; as a 2.5 million square foot project construction times are long and our end dates optimistic. Right now they're completing a lengthy and costly re-design mainly to create better alignment with LEED 2009. I received a reply yesterday from GBCI stating that no sunset date had been set (the policy doesn't give a date either) but end of 2018 does seem to be in line with the other dates. If I could reasonably update these projects to LEED 2012 I would. But with v2012 final version still months off I can't just halt the design process again with so much still up in the air (and I think my opportunity was already spent). Also, we're way behind the US in terms of market transformation. My clients had a strong goal to get LEED and has budgeted a very large amount for improvements to reach Gold Certification level; I've analyzed the current version of v2012 and the same project would not get Silver. Its very possible the owners would simply walk away in this case--its not been an easy process with many of the consultants baulking along the way and there is a high need to trust the system. I'm thinking that I should at least try to make a specific plea to the GBCI to keep us on, given the size of the project, length of time already implementing v2009 and and impossibility of keeping it inside any one system given the rate of introducing new systems. I know the comments are closed for v2012, but I'll try this through normal feedback channels.

Check page 29
https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/te...
Sunset date for v2.2 is June 27, 2015.

Well it now shows on the USGBC website that 4th comment period is delayed but that when open the comment period would last the full 15 days. Were we not supposed to be at ballot on June 1st? might not leave a lot of time for staff and TAGs to reply to comments

Tristan, can you setup the link to comments for the 4th comment period...it's already 2nd May and search as I might I can't find any links to the USGBC documents or comment page...neither here nor of USGBC.org

thanks for keeping the door open, Tristan.

Here's my 2-cents' worth...if there are substantive changes from the last version, there needs to be a 4th comment period. If there are no substantive changes, then I could not support anything coming out of the 3rd comment draft that did not have pretty major changes.

So, if there is no 4th comment draft, then a 'yes' vote from me is pretty unlikely.

This is out of sync, but I too am very concerned about the leap 2012 is proposing and I fear LEED is losing its way from its early simplicity.

For example, why break the sustainable sites into two categories? LEED was designed with the intention of being a simple five category system. I remember a GreenBuild keynote speaker standing up there with his hand open, saying we have 5 categories because we can count them on one hand. It’s simple and clear.

Creating another category is confusing and problematic. As a LEED consultant we are responsible for educating people about the system and creating a new category means reeducating people and also complicates the system even further. LEED needs to not lose its vision and stay a five fingered system.

Renaming all the points will confuse us and LEED is all we do. I’ve already had major clients tell me they may cease to require LEED because it will become too complicated and too expensive.

Furthermore, while the intent behind many of the revised credits is valuable it is too much too soon. As LEED consultants we spend time daily educating contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and distributers about LEED, the 2012 system is a step in the right direction but it is too large of a step to made in a year. We are still educating people on what LEED is let alone the intricacies of it. Please do not lose the small guys in your visioning process.

We appreciate that LEED continues to evolve and drive the market place, but if you make the starting line halfway up the mountain, it’s hard to go higher. The purpose of having the multiple levels of certification is to motivate projects to aim high. If the new system knocks what is currently LEED Gold down to LEED Certified it’s a disincentive. It’s just too hard and I worry people won’t seek LEED certification at all.

Thanks for your comments, Gary. There are many good things that could be included in 2012 that could move the standard forward, raise the bar and not decouple the LEED engine from the market train. If we were to have a 4th comment period on a dialed-back standard (and enough time to comment on it) I think we could have our cake and eat it too.

Thanks Rob, a great quote. The quote that'll also mention is from a lesser well known historical figure who said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". (Mr. Spock) Which is antithetical to our current American culture as the needs of the 'few' have outweighed the needs of the many.
I will have to place LEED 2012 in the 1000 paces ahead catagory. I hope everyone will vote 'no' and again encourage usgbc to hold off on a rollout this year with such sweeping changes.

For new construction the penetration of LEED certified projects is over 20%, but when you look at the addressable market of existing building renovation, that penetration is only about 3%, so even the overall 10% penetration estimate is probably generous for the US market as a whole.

WRT leadership recognition vs. market transformation, I think the goal was "both/and" but we must be very cautious not to run into Gandhi's Paradox: when a leader is 100 paces ahead of her followers, she is revered and called a Visionary. When she is 1000 paces ahead she is stoned and called a Heretic.

I'd forgotten about the bookshelf concept. I think this is one area in which BD+C 2012 really excels -- there's a master system (shelf), with individual books (credits) or chapters (options) pulled off for different building types, e.g. schools, healthcare, etc. This makes for a richer system than 2009.

There's something to be said for accomplishing this in smaller segments. I find this comment process overwhelming! I'm afraid many practitioners, especially those in government positions, are not able to allocate any time on the job to give careful consideration to these important proposals for change. It takes a lot of time, which can consume nights and weekends.

I'd guess there are a lot of people who get started and then decide they can't do a good job of it, so they do nothing, which does not help us produce a practical and efficient criteria where the costs don't outweigh the benefits.

Hi Barry--I can't really answer 'what happened' on behalf of USGBC. My guess is that the inherent complexity of managing multiple changes over several rating systems while ensuring transparency and participation have resulted in USGBC modifications in its approach. I think the reality of managing multiple comment periods, even with a smaller number of credits, caused some rethinking. My guess is that there is also something having to do with ANSI consensus body requirements that forced a reconsideration.

Rob
A very measured answer, thank you. Now a question: Back not that long ago USGBC created "The Bookshelf". This was created so that each prereq and credit was a separate chapter of the total book (The total book being whichever breed of LEED was being used, NC, CI, etc). What was indicated at that time was that on a rolling two year process specific chapters would be updated as and when needed...this would result in an simpler process, targeting a smaller number of credits/prereqs at a time that the membership could then get their heads around, keep some semblance of continuity by retaining some prereqs and credits and therefore reduce the comment periods to a clearly defined number and width of discussion.
So Rob, what happened?

Bill, thanks so much for the clarification and info. But again, I'll stand by my encouragment to hold the bar where it is for more market buyin and/or suppliment LEED 2009 with addenda, such as using moving to ASHRAE 90.1 2010.
Sure v3 retaines much of what v2.2 was, raising the bar in energy primarily.
There is still so much myth, misunderstandings, misconceptions of LEED and the associated costs.
No matter the politics behind 'PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN GOLD OR PLATINUM', it has sent a ripple effect throughout my firm and our client base essentially defocusing on LEED and refocusing on solely energy.
To the contrary of your comment about what credits need to be earned, much of DOD and specific RFPs are indeed stipulating what credits are to be earned and what credits cannot be pursued. For example, Green Power has long been a forbidden credit, again erroniously.
And, in the design-build world the contractor will always go for the cheapest credits first or stop at Silver any way they can.
Another ripple from this the pulling away from seeing Gold-Plantinum as a betterment. As a whole deincentivizing higher levels of sustainability and certification.

A sweeping change will hurt us all. I wholeheartedly agree that the bar needs to be raised, but incrimentally and slowly with respect to our culture.

The only solution would be 'mandates'. In the stance of voluntary, the vast majority are still focused on the bottom line, not the triple bottom line and would simply opt out, choose to reinvent the wheel or go with a lame rating system like Green Globes.

LEED 2009 is not much different from v2.2. It was repackaged but the majority of Credits are the same.

The National Defense Authorization Act that you quoted is because a wood certification group that has been unsuccessful in getting their products accepted by LEED has now changed tactics to put a different pressure on USGBC. Lobby Congress to limit LEED spending. It's politics.

The DOD is using a loop hole that requires no proof other than the Contractor's word who wants the work. And the law does not say which credits need to be earned. If the most expensive credits are earned first to get a high silver rating then other credits like location are free and at no extra cost and can earn gold or platinum.

I'm glad to hear your DOD clients are embracing LEED.
I'm not sure where the wood comment came from?
What is your response to: National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012’ SEC. 2830. REPORT ON ENERGY-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND
PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LEADERSHIP IN
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN GOLD OR PLATINUM CERTIFICATION. ?

I am still in the strong opinion that usgbc should wait two or more years for another rollout and to allow for markets to digest and buy into LEED 2009.
Thanks for your response.

LEED 2009 will have been around for at least 3.5 years - possibly more - when the change is made to v2012, since the first 2009 projects could first register in Q2 2009.

Also, the recent DOD LEED regulation has little to do with the cost and perception of LEED and everything to do with the wood lobby - see http://www.buildinggreen.com/live/index.cfm/2012/2/23/Are-FSC-and-LEED-K.... I also do DOD work, and my clients strongly support LEED and agressive sustainability measures that reduce total cost of ownership.

It sounds like the question is not whether or not to raise the bar, but how much to raise it? As the first big change in over a dozen years, I think that it's coming none too soon (but that some big concerns still need to be addressed prior to release).

I like the idea that, if changes continue to be this significant, then USGBC may want to go to a four year update in the future, instead of three.

Market transformation should not be so complex that people run away from it. In reviewing LEED 2012, there's still a lot of education in certifying a project that needs to take place. Many building owners and contractors are still not embracing LEED 2009 at this time so why not extend the timeline to 2014.

Insanely alarming...

Thanks Melissa. I work on a lot of urban adaptive reuse projects so the diverse uses credit is key to that type project. Even the lower density is difficult to achieve. You are correct that this is one case where the criteria was lowered.

Hi Pat,

I should have specified - I was addressing the ID&C system in my comment, so points are slightly different than BD&C.

In v2009 ID&C, 6 points could be obtained by locating a project in a dense area (60,000sqft/acre) OR in an area with access to 10 diverse uses. In v2009 BD&C, 5 points were available for meeting the same set of requirements.

In v2012 ID&C, a project will now be able to achieve the same number of points (6) for being located in a much less dense area (35,000 sqft/acre) and also an additional 2 points if there are at least 8+ diverse uses. This totals 8 points.

In v2012 BD&C, a project will now be able to achieve 4 points for being located in a less dense area (35,000 sqft/acre) and an additional 2 points for being located in an area with at least 8+ diverse uses. This totals 6 points.

Furthermore - denser areas are more likely to have more diverse uses. The additional points achieved for diverse uses in areas that are already very dense seem to be double-counting and not actually adding any new substantial "green value" to the project.

Perhaps not many projects in the v2012 system were achieving this credit and so the USGBC decided to relax it.

Relaxed credits such as the one I've detailed above do not support the idea being discussed on LEED User that v2012 must be more complicated and more expensive than v2009 in order to be substantially "greener".