Eligibility based on absense of system

Timothy Nabholz

Miljöcertifieringsingenior (Environmental Certification Engineer)

Skanska

LEEDuser Basic Member

2 thumbs up

March 14, 2013

Hey all, I was wondering if there was any notion on whether there were thoughts to award points to those who do not have a negative aspect on their project. Ie. in Sweden we don't use Cooling Towers in our buildings as they are not required, however we lose out on 2 points within the system for omitting them, rather than achieve 2 points for not needing them. It seems like the wrong message to send to builders, that it is better to put in a highly-efficient cooling tower in a building that doesn't need it. I imagine others have experienced similar frustrations with other credits for omitting other negatives from their projects. Do we know if the USGBC has looked into this?

Post a reply

Susan Walter

HDR

LEEDuser Expert

894 thumbs up

Tue, 03/19/2013 - 17:44

In general, getting points by not doing something hasn't been rewarded in the LEED system. For example, if I design and build a structure without wood, I won't be able to earn MRc7 Certified Wood. If I have no exterior lighting and an exempted interior lighting situation, I won't earn SSc8. It's the old, not all credits are right for all projects thing.

Timothy Nabholz

Miljöcertifieringsingenior (Environmental Certification Engineer)

Skanska

LEEDuser Basic Member

2 thumbs up

Wed, 03/20/2013 - 08:56

Hey Susan, Thanks for the reply, and I think I agree with you that not all LEED points work for all projects, but I disagree in the reasoning for it. I think that if you are able to remove the negative environmental impact that the credit is worried about and are not creating potentially other environmental impacts at the same time, then you should be eligible for the credit. As you bring up the MRc7 credit, I guess I will discuss this further. If a project is to build with FSC certified wood, they are using a well-maintained renewal resource to build their building. However if they decide to build with concrete, brick or some other building material, they likely aren't using a renewable resource in the same way, and thus potentially causing other negative environmental impacts. On the other hand, by reducing your requirement to use a cooling tower, however efficient it is, is reducing both energy and water consumption and is not replacing it with another negative environmental impact. I see these as two separate issues and would compare the cooling tower elimination more to eliminating parking or refrigerants, as it completely eliminates the negatives without adding other potential negatives.