Gary--I'm interested in your experience with the College that couldn't do EBOM v4 because of the prereqs. Can you say which prereqs were the challenge? And, perhaps more to the point, will the school be in a position to achieve by the original v3 phase-out date of June 2015? Or by the new phase-out date of Oct 2016? Or are they something that will continue to exclude those projects?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Gary Shlifer MS, LEED AP BD+C, Homes
Green Building Professional LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Homes - Chief Sustainability ProfessionalGuernsey.us
22 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 3:28 pm
I'm a bit confused about your question. Are we talking about the now new registration close or the sunset of v3? Assuming you meant sunset, that wasn't an issue. (06/30/2021)
The University was registered in 2013 and chose to pursue EB:OM v4 under the pilot program. Prerequisites EA and IEQ were the main issue. Also accruing enough points for the goal of Silver was part of the decision to move back to v3.
EAc2: Min Energy Performance (then gaining any points under EAc4), IEQp1: Min IAQ Performance. We could achieve WEp1, but couldn't get any of the 5 points with WEc2: Indoor Water Use Reduction under budget constraints.
The new 'registration close' date is a good thing. I'm wondering if the sunset date will be pushed to coincide?
Hope this helps.
G
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 3:33 pm
USGBC policy is to sunset rating systems 6 years after the date they stop taking registrations.
P Fanfulik
PE, LEED AP BD+CWMATA
8 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 3:50 pm
USGBC has already indicated that the sunset date will not change for LEEDv2009.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 3:54 pm
Apparently policies are meant to be unilaterally changed.
Taryn Holowka
SVP, Marketing, Communications & AdvocacyU.S. Green Building Council
2 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 4:33 pm
The LEED Steering Committee will be discussing the LEED 2009 sunset date and will have a definitive sunset date in the next week or so, provided there is agreement within the LSC.
Glen Phillips
Sustainability ProfessionalBright Green
42 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 4:35 pm
@Taryn
Thank you USGBC for poking your head back in! Can you confirm that the LEED Steering Committee was engaged on the decision to push back the registration close date?
Taryn Holowka
SVP, Marketing, Communications & AdvocacyU.S. Green Building Council
2 thumbs up
November 10, 2014 - 4:48 pm
Hi Glen - the decision to leave LEED 2009 open for the additional time was driven by staff (and not an LSC vote). In the past as well, this has been a staff decision rather than something we've taken to the committee.
Barry Giles
Founder & CEO, LEED Fellow, BREEAM FellowBuildingWise LLC
LEEDuser Expert
338 thumbs up
November 11, 2014 - 10:30 am
Taryn. The LSC's responsibilities are:
The LEED Steering Committee (LSC) is an integrated group of volunteers and staff charged with developing and maintaining LEED as a leadership tool, preserving the integrity of the LEED rating systems, and ensuring the use of the consensus process to evolve LEED in accordance with the mission, guiding principles, and strategic plan of USGBC. (Taken directly from the USGBC website)
With respect to you and your team it looks like that the LSC might well have failed in those duties, namely : 'maintaining LEED as a leadership tool' and 'preserving the integrity of the LEED rating systems'.
In great mitigation I do believe that these decisions were taken by staff at higher 'pay-grade' levels than those of the hard working staff associated with the day to day running of these committees, however we are all now fighting a rear guard action to mitigate these poor decisions (V4 backslide to V3 and LDP) when LSC should have perhaps provided the opportunity for committees, membership and staff to have better input.
Obviously looking back membership has probably seen this coming for some time and should have requested bigger roles than they currently have, but turning some of these decisions around while allowing a 'saving of face' is going to be an uphill struggle.