Extension problematic

I agree that 18 months is too much time. 12 months would have been more appropriate and should have been plenty of additional time to accomplish the goal of letting everyone adjust. As you mention, the credentialing aspect of this is definitely problematic; it will be interesting to see if they make any adjustments in that regard.

I think that you're right on the money about the Energy standard being the issue, Martha. I've started hearing, even from folks in Europe, that v4 is not only better than v3, it's actually easier to work with. I think that the main reason folks haven't been opting into v4 is that they know they'll get fewer energy points. 

I agree with your concerns and I'm particularly concerned that the USGBC is looking at overhauling the construction credits. We've already invested in changing our documentation process. It's true that early adopters will have difficultly acheiving these credits. But it's the right "next step". Maybe reduce some of the requirements (ie 10 instead of 20 EPDs) for the early adopters, but don't overhaul.

I agree that many are scared off by the 19% stringency increase in 90.1-2010. As with many of the new issues in LEED the reaction seems to be based far more on a fear of the unknown than anything else. Relative stringency is determined as an average so there are project types for which the stringency only increased a few percent - multifamily and high process load facilities - and others who increased more that the average, on average. There are many other variables which enter into the equations as well, especially the selection of your proposed HVAC system. In general some systems just score better than others. Also keep in mind that the threshold were also reduced (smaller percent savings required to earn the same number of points). Off the top of my head - if you take advantage of the right HVAC system, I would put the difference between 90.1-2007 and 90.1-2010 at less than 10% for most projects. This means a loss of 2 - 3 points.

Regarding the credentialing side of this, I was assured by USGBC yesterday that this will not set back the exams. I do realize the final call likely resides with GBCI, but as they are so closely aligned, this is enough for me to rely on. While it is an interesting question, it would be absolutely counter to trying to prepare the market for v4 to take a step back on the credentialing side.

Glen, but if the market is not ready to use V4 then they are not ready for the exam....right now total chaos is beginning to reign at head office if it doesn't already!
Perhaps the USGBC should just drop v4 and the exam in the round file in the corner, cut their losses and upgrade the v3 exam.

I hope USGBC is listening and will consider making fixes and upgrades to LEED 2009. It's sat on the backburner with all the push and effort for LEED v4 and if it will be in use for another 8 years, it needs attention.

Barry,

I suspect that USGBC views LEED v4 education and the credentialing exam as a key way to make sure that even as we backslide 16.5 months on market adoption, that we continue to make progress in terms of readiness for v4.

Full disclosure, we just finished our 2nd v4 exam prep course, so I'm sure I see this issue with at least a little personal bias.