Feedback after pursuing PC132

Dirk Kestner

Principal

Walter P Moore

LEEDuser Basic Member

19 thumbs up

Project location :

United States

February 18, 2022

We are completing our pursuit of this Pilot Credit. Overall it went well. Here are a few comments and observations:

First, I was a bit surprised that there are only two previous comments on this thread. Have others been pursuing this pilot credit but posting comments elsewhere? Also, Atlas –Is there an update on your post?
We found that by pursuing the pilot, and explaining the background to the team, we were able help show the ready-mix supplier the benefit of obtaining mix specific EPD’s. While not explicitly required as part of the procurement process, we were able to obtain supplier (and mix) specific EPD’s for all the mixes used on the project. Prior to our project the local market (and state) did not have any mix specific EPD’s in EC3, so hopefully this will help other projects as well.
We used EC3 to perform our calculations. Stacy, Phil, and others at Building Transparency were very responsive and helpful as the new concrete EPD’s needed to be added to the tool.
One observation for teams to be aware of (and anecdotally I am hearing confusion about). Measuring a percent reduction from the CLF baselines is a different exercise than the reduction one may see as part of the WBLCA credit when measuring compared to industry average data / EPD’s. This is because the CLF baselines / UW methodology also includes an uncertainty factor and uses a burden of the doubt methodology. For example for the project we just completed we performed both WBLCA and the procurement pilot credit. The WBLCA showed a ~15% reduction in GWP whereas the pilot shows a ~40%. I think this is ok since the credits have different intents, users just need to be aware of the difference.

Post a reply

Bipin Karki

LEEDuser Premium Member

88 thumbs up

Fri, 02/18/2022 - 14:00

Hello Dirk, Thank you for sharing your comments and observations. It is very helpful.

Kristen Magnuson

Stok

LEEDuser Premium Member

6 thumbs up

Fri, 09/12/2025 - 22:42

We are just now completing our pursuit for this credit and wanted to x2 Dirk's observation above. Our project also pursued both the WBLCA credit and the Procurement of Low Carbon Construction Materials credit. Because the latter still references the CLF v2021 baseline values, we are seeing differences in the reductions being calculated. We encourage teams to be clear with clients and building owners why these differences exist, particularly if they are looking to make carbon reduction claims as part of their company's sustainability strategy.

In our example, the WBLCA credit reflected a 16% reduction, whereas we are tracking ~50% for the pilot credit. We have shared our feedback on revising the baseline values to align with more updated CLF Material Baselines reports (for instance, v2025 was released just a few months ago), but thought to also flag here for other teams looking into the pursuit of this credit.

Atlas Turner

Project Associate

O'Brien360

LEEDuser Premium Member

7 thumbs up

Mon, 09/15/2025 - 16:53

The university project I was on did ended up submitting using the 2019 CLF baselines as required, but in addition to that we submitted the previous building as baseline. The project was awarded the innovation overall, and we were able to tell the client a unique embodied carbon story by performing both calculations.

LEEDuser Premium Member

1 thumbs up

Thu, 11/13/2025 - 23:33

Thank you for your insights, Dirk.

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Mon, 11/17/2025 - 16:49

Hello everyone,Sharing our experience pursuing PC132 on a large and complex project:Overall, the credit is achievable when there is a clear intention to reduce the project’s embodied carbon footprint. Reaching the 30% threshold is feasible if low-carbon options can be secured for key materials (typically structural elements). In our case, the EC3 platform worked well and most EPDs were uploaded and processed without major issues.As others have noted, we also saw clear differences between the reductions calculated using the EC3 tool + CLF baseline and other LCA frameworks. This mainly comes down to differences in baseline assumptions, CLF uncertainty factor, and assessment scope. Under PC132 we achieved a 37% reduction, while our WBLCA reached 46%. From this work, a few observations emerged that may be useful for future credit consideration:

Low-carbon procurement affects more than A1–A3: procurement choices often influence other life-cycle stages (particularly B2–B5), where durability becomes critical for long-lifespan buildings. LEED could consider durability or expected material lifespan vs building lifespan.
Some key material categories are still missing: meaningful reductions were achieved in precast elements, finishes (paints, coatings, fire protection), and fixed furnishings, none of which are currently included in CLF Baseline. Providing baselines for these categories would help reflect additional CO2 mitigation efforts.
Some project-specific EPDs were not correctly updated in EC3 database: despite being fully published and listed in recognized databases, some EPDs were flagged as “Parsed with errors”, preventing us from demonstrating further reductions.
Improving EC3’s parsing and validation would help avoid these issues.
New EPDs recognition. In our case, more than ten EPDs were developed specifically because of the project. While this represents real market and procurement transformation, the pilot credit currently doesn’t recognize this effort.