Explain the reasons for the change

Marcus, the solution to keeping current is what was done with LEED during LEED v2 (2.0, 2.1, 2,2). That worked well. Why did the USGBC decided to go with a wholesale revamp of LEED is what should be explained. A very intelligent group of people figure that going with .x versions were necessary to not overwhelm the market with too many changes made at one time. That hard work people like put "our heart and soul into" has been completely erased.

LEED 2009.1 (v3.1) should have gone out a few years with standards updated to be current--and energy point adjusted to keep some reasonable similarity with 3.0 such that v3 projects are not penalized by new standard version. Changes to credits that were not based on standards would be minimal, and changes made would need to be justified.

LEED v4.0 is where the ratings bar moves upwards--harder to earn points. But once again, wholesale credit requirement changes would be avoided.

The material credit evolution was discussed for LEED v2009, even during v2 development. The changes were deferred. Because the changes to the materials credits were significant they merited being the sole reason to move LEED one-step forward with minimal changes made elsewhere. In my opinion, moving to a new version of ASHRAE is not a minimal change. ASHRAE updates are necessary changes that could have been included with a revamp of the materials credits.

Hernando:

I'll agree and disagree. It's been 15 years since LEED NC v2.0 was introduced. 2.1, 2.2 were very minor changes. Even 3.0 didn't actually eliminate any non-functioning credits. LEED has been overdue for changes in the material and IEQ sections for quite some time. If not now, when?

Having said that, I think the approach going forward should be toward regular, incremental changes, on a predictable schedule. A continuous maintenance approach similar to other standards.

Further, I worry that we've lost sight of the crucial part of our mission. A colleague said it best - "rating systems have taken on more and more social and economic issues – these are all worthy causes, nice-to-have, but compared to the frightening consequences of global warming and need for VERY urgent global action they are of marginal importance."

Chris, I think we are the same incremental change needs to come back boat.

If by non-functioning credits you mean credits that did not seem to do anything, that was intentional. If all of the LEED credits were hard to do then you must have fewer credits in LEED.

In terms of VERY urgent global warming, the problem with LEED is that it is based on ASHRAE as the sole determiner of points won.

I managed to keep a LEED project at Platinum, much to the shock of the GBIC who seemed to bet against me that I would only earn Gold for the project after the preliminary LEED review. The energy analyst was forced by remodel the project, and the reviewers knew that several point would be lost. I was not worried as much because I knew the changes would result in points lost, but should not be significant in terms of total energy use. I was correct. The project earned every energy point it originally submitted, and it was able to slightly reduce the amount of on-site renewables that were allocated to the project to earn all of the energy points possible.

So, a project that suddenly loses several LEED energy points somehow documents that it actually uses less total energy than a "more efficient" LEED building. That is a problem with how ASHRAE points are awarded in LEED. That Platinum building is responsive to global warming, LEED energy efficiency notwithstanding.