See all forum discussions about CI-v4 EQc2
 Subscribe to new posts about CI-v4 EQc2 Post a new question aboutCI-v4 EQc2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on CI-v4 EQc2»
FAQs about EQc2 :

Is all solid wood considered inherently non-emitting? I’ve seen sources that say only solid wood flooring counts as inherently non-emitting.

I'm looking for a certification that tells me if a given product will meet the LEED v4 requirements, but I don't see one in a given product area. Am I missing something?

When products claim that they meet California Section 01350, does the product also meet LEED v4 requirements for low-emitting materials?

How do I know if a product complies with LEED v4 or if it was tested under an older non-compliant standard?

In past versions of LEED, it was easy to specify VOC limits. Is the specification process the same for LEED v4?

Is there a VOC budget method for this credit?

What are the limits on the VOC budget method?

Do products applied to the weather barrier need to comply with VOC thresholds? 

If one part of my multicomponent wall system is not compliant, can I still get full credit?

Our building is atypical, and the walls and ceilings are not clearly defined. How should we classify these components? 

Are throw rugs subject to the credit requirements?

If a ceramic tile receives a top coat after it is manufactured, is it exempt from the credit requirements?

What are the adhesives and sealants to be included in the documentation?

View answers »

Forum discussion

CI-v4 EQc2:Low emitting materials

Disincentivizing Low Emitting Products

The new bundling of low emitting categories into one credit is resulting in disincentivizing our v4 projects from pursuing low emitting credits they always used to before. It takes 5 categories to get 2 pts. But with furniture now including ancillary which is liable to come from smaller providers who tend not to have certification, there are only 3 categories really well positioned to achieve compliance - paints, composite wood and flooring - all of which have long had emissions standards in place. All of sudden our projects really don't need to care about adhesives and sealants complying at all because they can't get to that 2nd point anyway. This doesn't seem quite right. Am I missing something?

1
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

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

Go premium for $15.95  »

Wed, 01/25/2017 - 18:49

In order to respond I need to give you a little history on how the rating system was developed. You and others actually inspired me to write a blog post. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mhallestern/recent-activity/posts/ I'll give you the highlights. I don't see a date on this file, document “LEED v4, Impact Category and Point Allocation Development Process,” but I downloaded to my computer in November 2013. http://bit.ly/2j4ZWBz In order to both increase the rigor of LEED, and to more closely align it with triple bottom line impacts, USGBC defined 7 impact categories and weighted them according to the “critical question: ‘What should a LEED project accomplish?’” Once the 7 categories were weighted, USGBC devised a computer algorithm to statistically analyze the effectiveness of each credit against these criteria. Points were massaged and remassaged and reviewed by multiple entities, including public comment, until we have what is there today. We're just going to have to test it out and keep the conversation going. I'm sure there will be adjustments and interpretations.

Add new comment

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