I echo your feelings Nadav. The sudden unilateral move based on an informal survey (and surely other informal data sources) was a big shocker for us. I think I'm surprised that they pushed it back so far. When California Title 24 compliance was postponed, it was only pushed back 6 months and the industry rose to the occasion. I think if the materials credit concerns were that great then they could have found an interim solution to that credit category alone without delaying the whole program.

LEED V3 (I much prefer this nomenclature to 2009) has quickly become the status quo (well almost, there are always laggards) which is great but it's certainly time to raise the bar. It was supposed to be LEED 2012 and now it's going to be LEED 2016! LEED V4 includes welcome changes on water and integrative process, energy metering, energy efficiency and IEQ among other categories that are long overdue. I agree that at a minimum the standard should move EAp2/c1 baselines to 90.1-2010 for V3 (or raise the minimum percent improvement if that's too big of a legal headache).