A call to hit the 'pause' button on LEEDV4..formerly 2012 ;-)

I think I've been clear in my opinion. Keep the stringency but revamp the whole system to simplify the paperwork.

This has my full support! A few of us have started analyzing the details of how projects might achieve some of the credits in the MR section, and it appears that based on current language there may be some unintended consequences (aka loopholes) that would allow projects to very easily achieve points based on standard practice, depending on the construction type and the project location. I don't think USGBC intends these things, but they won't figure it out without a lot of up front analysis with real projects. Making these things formal via early ballot could become a big black eye, and make them more of a target then they already are (e.g. by the chemical industry).

I also agree with Bill, though there may be a few areas where "stringency" has gone a little overboard, just IMHO.

Disagree.
If a ballot passes then the start date for V4 could be set for Jan 1st 2014 (V3 terminated on that date). For BD&C that 'could' posse a problem with trying to pilot V4 within that time period, but for EB it's very achievable (We've managed 91 days operations plus 90 days GBCI review...and in this case GBCI would need to fast track pilots so that the results could be in the marketplace)
With a Jan 1st 2014 start date all those of you wanting to 'hold back' could do...just register in V3..then you have 5 years to hold V3 while the pilots and early contracts run the process and produce the results.
Really how many credits are actually causing major headaches? Rob, we need that matrix!

I vote that V4 (version 4) is postponed until all significant issues in v2.2, v2009 and LEED Online are resolved. The exercise of working out the kinks in those systems will help the USGBC perfect V4 before launching it.

Disagree. It will never be perfect but it raises the bar. Time to start using it.

I think we need to start using it - absolutely - but be prepared for the inevitable glitches, loopholes, etc. Many credits are totally solid - especially (IMHO) in the EA section, thanks in part to you Chris, no doubt - but many contain pretty big unknowns, with potential loopholes and unintended consequences. This is a good thing, but it means that we need a little wiggle room if things really don't go as intended. Other than with Pilots and to a lesser extent Addenda, the LEED system hasn't been well set up to address this in past versions.

If plan 'A' is to roll out V4 in November with a start date of 1-1-13 (just guessing here)....what's plan 'B'?

Rob, I definitely meant the early adopter "we": those of us who have piloted LEED before and would love to do it again. That's why I would like to see a "real" beta - one that is used to inform the full rollout at a later date. I think that most of the credits will be fine, but those that aren't will cause serious headaches.

I agree about the prerequisites; I have concerns that some will be unnecessary barriers to entry. I also agree about the "flopping" -- a whole new MR section with every draft? Really? With an MR TAG that has only one BD+C practitioner? I expect the Reference Guide development to be a mammoth, thankless task.

That said, I also think that it's been too long without substantive change to most LEED sections and credits - it's time. However, this lack of change previously is part of the reason that this change hurts so badly.

Great point Mara. What has finally come out in 2012 is a very well intentioned attempt to fix known issues and update know deficiencies that have been identified as far back as 2005 following the release of v2.2. A big part of the problem perhaps is that we did not do what Rob has suggested and implemented a somewhat greater degree of incremental change into LEED 2009. In hindsight the changes we are considering now appear to be a far bigger leap than they would have been otherwise. Unfortunately LEED 2009 changes were most structural and not technical in nature but we are where we are.

As one very small part of the massive team already working on the next Reference Guide can I take your comment as a "thank you"? I am thankful to work with some amazing, dedicated people to help raise Rob's baby.

I totally agree about the rate of change issue. (I discussed that a lot in the 2nd and 3rd draft forums.) On one hand, it's catch up time - better late than never. On the other hand, the industry is now accustomed to relatively slow change in LEED requirements - it's a shock to the system. A very long overlap between V3 and V4 would help.

Yes, thanks :)

There is one change in v2012 that is significantly raising the bar, and it was the simplest to implement…changing to ASHRAE 90.1-2010. We have an engineer in our firm on the 90.1 committee, and we get regular briefings on what is going on, and this is a huge step from 2004, and a big step from 2007. This alone will take time to integrate and see the reaction to the points projects can get. I agree, that we have many projects reaching Gold, and while not the total story, energy has generally been a big factor. Also, we still have very little final results from v2009 in our firm, while we have some 70 projects seeking v2009, only 3 have been fully certified to date (of the 66 certified so far). We have maybe another 40 v2.2 projects working their way through the system. For that reason, 3 years is feeling a little tight on taking steps.

Rob, totally agree with you...EB should lead LEED. Rob states very well the huge lag time that BD&C etc have...it continues to worry me that many of the current construction going up in San Francisco, because it has been delayed so long due to the recession, is being built to very old standards. I'm sure that's true everywhere, but don't have an answer of how to make them current.

I agree Rob, it is simply to soon to implement a new version of LEED in my eyes. While I agree with the initiative of the USGBC as well as many of the proposed credits, I believe trying to push this through too quickly would only cause difficulties for this ever-growing industry.

1. From a consulting/designing perspective:
Many of the on-going projects at our firm are currently still in the midst of submitting LEED NC ~1.0 documentation of certification. Our LEED 2009 projects are still just getting off the ground and realistically, I can see many of them continuing into the latter part of this decade. Many employees just get confused at times between the subtle differences in credits. If we were to introduce another version of LEED to the workplace, juggling 3 would be a little more inconvenient, to say the least. I also wanted to note that the clients/developers we work with are just becoming familiar with LEED 2009 and can comfortably hold their own during in-depth credit discussion with the LEED consultant. These guys don't work with LEED everyday as some of us do, a new version of LEED would make other stakeholders less comfortable in sustainable talks.

2. On the site, I also teach courses for LEED GA/AP BD+C exam prep. When the switch is made from 2009 to 2012, all those writing the 2012 exam will likely be studying credits that are not currently used in the real world, but will be used in the future instead, making their new-found credential achievement less applicable to the present time, a hindrance to the employer+ employee.

With that said, while I understand that a new version of LEED is needed to progress sustainability in the built environment, I do not believe that it is imperative to implement LEEDV4 immediately, agreeing with Rob.

Feel Free to refute any points, I am always up to discuss!

Commenting from Canada,
Lorne Mlotek

Change is hard and difficult but that is not a valid reason to avoid it.

For me the imperative for change is to maintain LEED as an actual leadership standard. Right now, in my opinion, it has become a give-a-plaque to the status quo standard. I have jokingly referred to this situation as SQEED - Staus Quo in Energy and Environmental Design. When LEED becomes SQEED it looses its meaning.

Too far, too fast - maybe a valid argument but with 50% of BD+C projects getting LEED Gold I think the imperative for some change is pretty clear.

I also agree that EBOM should be leading the way but it never will if we exclude over 50% of the market out of the gate.

Hi Marcus,

Very valid comment. I agree change is difficult, but in this industry entirely necessary. The 50% BD+C Buildings is a statistic I was unaware of. I am not sure if I should be impressed with the stat or rather if it is as you say, just an indicator of needed change.

A little off-topic: I was curious if these 50% of BD+C LEED GOLD projects are concentrated in a specific which has the same building code (IE. SOCAL etc..). Do you think that the next version of LEED should make more credits available for projects that do not fit into a 'mainstream' LEED project (IE. Very low density or Climate extreme variances) ? Or rather, that LEED is set-up in such a way to deter any remotely low-density construction and in special circumstance, enough points are up for grabs through RPc and ID credits?

Marcus,
Starting the minimum energy points at 24% savings in 2009 would probably stop the growth of SQEED without an upgrade to the system. :)

I think 2012 will/would be harder to achieve on the projects we've worked on, but using it probably wouldn't be an absolute deal breaker. The surge in registrations for 2009 before the deadline however might crash the GBCI server permanently.

The goal at the end of the day should be about getting a lot of buildings to improve rather than just a few to improve a lot. LBC is great, but it’s a long way from 12,000 buildings certified. I guess at the end of the day the decision to hit the "pause" button should be determined by which path (delay 2012 or implement it) improves the most buildings. I don’t know the answer, in my market I would probably rather try and certify projects for another year or two under 2009 with the option to go for 2012 with clients who really want to be green.

Lorne,
Download the GBCI certified project directory and you can filter your way to the answer. According to Rob's last Green Building Market report the percentage of certified Gold projects is 39%.

Map of LEED Certified Projects in the US by Certification Level:
http://energy-models.com/tools/leed-certified-buildings-state
California, has the most LEED Gold, Platinum Building total, however, adjusting by population reveals that Maryland is the most certified state state and Oregon has the most LEED Golds and Platinum:
http://energy-models.com/blog/8-15-11/true-greenest-leedest-state-usa

Dylan,

Awesome link! Could you do a map for international projects? Maybe one comparing the number of projects pursuing LEED, BREEAM, DGNB, HQE?

Not sure what the 39% is based on. The stats I am referencing come from USGBC staff and are annual values over the past three years or so.

Eric,
I wish I could. I can't take credit for creating the map. Only researching to find it. Perhaps you could emails the blog creator Bob.

Lorne,

I think LEED rightly rewards projects that do not encourage sprawl.

Marcus,
I excel magiced the 4/19/2012 Public LEED project directory and for all certified projects (all systems) the certified percentage is 39.83% (4,992 out of 12,553) Gold with about 4,516 of them in the US.

All Projects - All Systems ~
Certified - 21%
Silver - 33%
Gold-40%
Platinum-6%

If we go by the floor area metric then ~:
Certified - Area-21%
Silver - Area-27%
Gold-Area45%
Platinum-Area-6%

My point is that the rate of gold projects has been steadily increasing as a percentage of the total each year to the point where we are now around 50%. Percentages since the beginning of LEED time are going to be different.

I saw a discussion on the difference in project timelines for EB vs. NC, which to me is a significant factor in version frequencies. I would also include CI in the EB category.
Within v2009 total projects, there are twice the number of EB (and CI projects) as there are NC. Only 483 NC projects(USA=405) have been certified under 2009 compared to 901 CI & 717 EB. Especially with the recent economic impact on NC starts, it certainly feels like we are just beginning to use/understand NC2009 much more than EB or CI.

The stats above even show the imbalance in the system. If it were perfectly balanced against the market one would expect to see a decreasing percentage of achievement as we move up the certification levels. Rob's idea of restructuring the points would potentially help even things a bit but probably not all the way. I think most of us believe that the bar should be raised so we are back to how far, how fast.

I love "SQEED" - I will definitely borrow that one!

The fact that we're increasingly moving toward Gold means that LEED is working. It also means that it's time to raise the bar. One of the challenges I see is that we're still trying to drag some sectors of the market along... while LEED Gold on an office building in San Francisco probably represents the status quo, a LEED Silver hospital in Indiana may actually be groundbreaking. The latter project type will still want to hang on to 2009 for a while, whereas the former will hopefully push into 2012.

I have never heard anyone say in a design/project meeting "Let's go for SILVER!”. Larger floor area projects have an incentive to certify at the highest level possible, as quickly as they can, and to actually earn that rating, perhaps that is why there is such a high percentage of Gold certified projects? Many of the early projects were "prestigious and landmark" projects / corporate headquarters, not exactly Silver targeters... Maybe it says something that projects want to earn a higher level certification, even if it's "harder".

We did a LEED Silver hospital in Indiana in 2006! :)

Heck of a coincidence you selected that example but I think that they have even caught up. How many project announcement have you seen lately where the target was Silver and the team "really came together" and delivered Gold? This is the sound of the market having caught up.

I do get your point about differences in markets and that certainly exists.

That's really funny! What's the project? I’m not familiar with many other inpatient/D&T facilities with LEED ratings in that area, so I must have missed it. The project I'm thinking about is targeting Silver by contract but will likely deliver Gold. In this case LEED of any kind is a definitely a big stretch for many of the parties involved, who shall remain unnamed. Believe me, they haven't all caught up! (This is also a seven building campus under one certification, which poses its own challenges.)

What is interesting to me is that while the HC sector itself has lagged behind other sectors (office, schools), the HC reference guide actually anticipates LEED 2012. LEED Silver and Gold Hospitals are still noteworthy and celebratory anywhere in the US from my point of view.

The other interesting statistics on LEED Hospitals is the costs ($/SF) are less for LEED Gold than for LEED Certified (Guenther/Vittori). As I recall, this has been attributed to integrative planning and early adoption of HVAC efficient designs. What 'Natural Capitalism' called "tunneling through the cost-barrier."

You're right, Susan, about costs - there's incentive to reduce HVAC system sizes by reducing peak loads (up to a point).

I think that LEED HC is a good example of an appropriate level of change for market penetration.

It was actually a hospital that is part of the prison system so not your typical hospital and it was a LEED v2.0/v2.1 project.

We have two hospitals that are certified under NC v2.2, one Certified, and one Silver. Hospitals are quite difficult to certify, and clearly benefit by strong and early participation of all design and construction team members.

I can understand some of your point Marcus on descending percentages if we have a universal or random selection process, but by definition, only motivated teams and owners (mostly) are going to pursue, so I feel the levels achieved will be skewed to the Gold. Platinum is still hard, at least they have been for our firm…hard fought and well worth the effort.

What worries me is the step. Right now I feel that with only the change to ASHRAE 90.1-2010, projects are moving down a step…in other words, what is a Gold today, is a Silver tomorrow. With proper market penetration, that feels about right. While mostly concerned with energy as a consulting engineering firm, from the conversations I have been hearing and having with colleagues in architectural firms, v2012 might be two steps? A Gold project today is a Certified project tomorrow?

Yea Scott I could see some of the data skewing due to familiarity coupled with motivation. The last time we were in balance with the market was 2005. That year Certified 37.3%, Silver 33.8%, Gold 25.4% as one would expect. In 2007 Silver passed certified and in 2009 gold passed silver. Evening up the point scale so gold does not have the bigger band-width would help too.

Outside data I see undeserving Gold and Platinum projects earning those levels everyday.