General - LEED 2012

I have major clients - including the largest state universities stating point blank they will stop requiring or even pursuing LEED if the 2012 changes remain as is. Part of the issue is the current standards are still not accurately understood by too much of the design community (shame on us), the continous revisions to credit forms and guidance (shame on USGBC), and the sheer insanity of the online system functionality or not (shame on GBCI). Our industries should be allowed to actually catch up with expectations before they move the goal line so substantially and many, many clients agree and will disengage. Others with whom we are finally starting to engage won't stay the course - precisely as Pat Thomas states above. I'm actually leeding an electronic campaign to vote against the new upgrades and my entire company is based on the success of LEED leading the way, oh well...

I do understand that some of you believe that the new version of LEED will cost more to complete...it's probably very true. But LEED has always cost money to complete, it's the ROI and increase in asset value that counts, not the initial investment.
What we are missing is that we rely too much on the plaque as having value instead of looking at what LEED processes are trying to achieve in a particular building at THAT particular time. A great parallel is BREEAM. BREEAM gives credence to the fact that an 'outstanding' building in 2010 is NOT the same ‘value’ as an 'outstanding' building in 2012....(and yes the cost of providing that 2012 version is far more than the 2010 version). So too should it be for LEED. True 'high performance buildings' need to have a process to constantly review the performance data and reassess themselves (It’s called re-certification) in an effort to prove that they are maintaining their ‘high performance’ characteristics or, hopefully, improving them. Unfortunately too many LEED buildings are frightened to go back and re-certify because they fully realize that they are NOT high performance but are content to hide behind an old plaque. LEED would have done itself a great favor by sun setting plaques at every year-end.
LEED will ALWAYS cost. As energy consumption drops per square foot the methodologies to get that lower number will cost MORE each year as we drive for lower and lower carbon footprints...so too will the cost of providing that consulting data. As consultants our job is perhaps to guide the ownerships and operating teams into the best possible options that we can financially justify in the ROI and increase in asset value, even if the building doesn’t post a plaque right away.

To some extent I agree with your comments Barry and I don't think anyone here would argue that the bar should continuously go up and with it go the costs to achieve LEED. However, I think we have to make a clear distinction between asking a client to pay more to implement high performance strategies and asking them to pay more to document the process. Having to raise my fees because of the extra time needed to research innovative ways to help clients reach their goals is one thing, but raising my fees because I have to perform mind-numbing calcuations within a rigid framework for compliance is quite another. I am going to have a hard time explaining to a client that it will now take me 40 hours do document the very same VOC credit that previously only took 20 hours...for less points. I just can't understand how that translates into added value for anyone.

oh, do I hear you with the 'mind numbing'!!!!
The trouble is the act of documenting the process is at its final moment going to be in the hands of GBCI, not the USGBC...(and to some extent, the reference guide.)
Long term consultants in LEED have over the years noticed that 'some' reviewers have resorted to 'credit creep'...(that's year on year requiring more and more supporting data to satisfy any given credit) While we appreciate that GBCI has done its utmost to drive the stake into the ground, the dollar cost of doing those 'mind numbing' calcs that have to keep up with moving goal posts will continue to be flexible if we don't have clear concise and rock steady requirements for satisfactory credit data.

Barry,

Another thing to consider is that if you look closely at v2012, some of the credits have actually been RELAXED from v2009.

A good example of this is the Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses credit. To achieve 6 pts- in v2012 the density must be 35,000sf/acre, whereas in v2009 the density needed to be 60,000sf/acre. That's a significantly relaxed requirement! Also, in order to achieve 2 additional points - a project needs to have access to 8 Diverse Uses as opposed to 10 in v2009.

USGBC - to my knowledge - has provided no data to back-up their claim that v2012 is significantly greener than v2009 and worth the additional cost and complication.

Hi Pat,

I should have specified - I was addressing the ID&C system in my comment, so points are slightly different than BD&C.

In v2009 ID&C, 6 points could be obtained by locating a project in a dense area (60,000sqft/acre) OR in an area with access to 10 diverse uses. In v2009 BD&C, 5 points were available for meeting the same set of requirements.

In v2012 ID&C, a project will now be able to achieve the same number of points (6) for being located in a much less dense area (35,000 sqft/acre) and also an additional 2 points if there are at least 8+ diverse uses. This totals 8 points.

In v2012 BD&C, a project will now be able to achieve 4 points for being located in a less dense area (35,000 sqft/acre) and an additional 2 points for being located in an area with at least 8+ diverse uses. This totals 6 points.

Furthermore - denser areas are more likely to have more diverse uses. The additional points achieved for diverse uses in areas that are already very dense seem to be double-counting and not actually adding any new substantial "green value" to the project.

Perhaps not many projects in the v2012 system were achieving this credit and so the USGBC decided to relax it.

Relaxed credits such as the one I've detailed above do not support the idea being discussed on LEED User that v2012 must be more complicated and more expensive than v2009 in order to be substantially "greener".