Last chance to comment on LEED v5

Regarding "Low Emitting Materials", PIPE insulation should be included in the category list of types. There is no good reason to exclude it, and listing it will prevent confusion about skipping over it.

Regarding "Low Emitting Materials":

1. MR Credit: Low-Emitting Materials: it is essential to include an Alternative Compliance Pathway, which is including test methods for VOC Emission testing for projects outside the USA. There are several labels and requirements for example in Europe, which are based on EN 16516 testing and many products are already tested and/or certified using this standard. Avoiding double testing is saving resources and the most sustainable solution. Alternative test methods, that have similar or lower limit values compared to LEED v5 criteria are already defined in LEED v4.1 and the document “LEED v4 EQ Credit Low-Emitting Materials Third Party Certifications and Labels”. A list or a link to a list of Alternative Compliance Pathway for projects outside the USA should be added including for example EMICODE EC1 Plus and EC2, Indoor Air Comfort Gold.
2. MR Credit: Low-Emitting Materials – Low-Emitting criteria – VOC emissions evaluation criteria: Third party Certification is mentioned as one option to show compliance with LEED v5. However, a list or a link to a list of accepted certification schemes, like Indoor Air Comfort USA, would be desired.

Re: EQc Occupant Experience- I am concerned with the subjective nature of the “biophilic design” portion of the credit. I think there needs to be metrics for measuring success so that approval isn’t at the whim of the reviewer’s interpretation. Examples might be natural finishes, planters/green walls, incorporation of patterns inspired by living systems. 

Having supported the development of LEED Since 1999, I believe it in its ability to change the market and improve the quality of our constructions. That said, I'm concerned that the direction of the acoustical elements within V5 will lead to less successful outcomes. Here are my concerns: 

I appreciate the Public Comment Round 1 feedback that the V5 goal is to provide flexibility and inclusion for more cultures as noted by the following feedback: "these qualitative words cannot be defined universally. This varies between cultures, populations and even individuals. The statistical variances are statistically meaningless because the variances are too large." The fallacy of this approach is that it ignores the range of appropriate design goals that have been successful. If flexibility is sought, then allow various countries to introduce their own set of regional/local quantitative goals that projects can strive for. But to leave these conditions completely unqualified results in undefined objectives, crippling vagueness, and extreme subjectivity that does not help the industry. One could make the same argument about the need for flexibility and cultural differences related to lighting and thermal comfort, but those sections still reference quantitative goals. The lack of quantitative goals is also an impediment for verification; how are reviewers supposed to identify what a project is proposing is appropriate versus what the project is proposing (inappropriately) to earn a credit regardless of the actual human experience (positive or negative)? Ultimately, "Flexibility" can still be accomplished by allowing regions to define appropriate quantitative outcomes. Otherwise, the flexibilty and vagueness results in a lack of clarity as to what project are to submit for review, what counts as pass/fail (and actually relates to positive human experience outcomes), and a possible irrelevance of the Sound Environments intents. The only positive that I see about this new wording is that every project can earn this credit(s) regardless of whether they create positive human experience as the outcome. Please make significant improvements to this credit to allow this to remain a useful credit for projects to achieve.

For MR credit BPDOs, Option 1 - points tied to the number of manufacturers inadvertantly creates a disadvantage for small projects that do not have many products or for projects that intentionally use the structure as the finish. It makes it seem that purchasing more is better when really  purchasing less is best. Addtionally, Option 2 tied to a value (cost, area, volume, or unit) will add cost to budgets, as contractors will have added scope to procure this information. A simple % of total based on the number of products in a category seems to achieve the same goal and will not add cost to a "LEED" project, as we so often hear contractors say.

EQ prerequisite Construction IAQ Plan: Will there be a standard to align with the protection of construction workers from extreme heat, so that our project teams have defined guidelines to follow, such as a California requirement or OSHA requirement?

Acoustic performance for Ocuppant Experience is not as precise and objective as acoustic studies and cientific advances defined as objectives achievements for acoustic confort, speech inteligibility, audibility, reverberation times and other parameters that have direct impact in acoutic performance, we need objectives task to achive the goal!!

How are the Occupant Experience credits to be implemented on a CS project, when most of these credit requirements pertain to Interior Design? 

Option 2. Operable windows : Design 50% (for 1 point) or 75% (for 2 points) of the regularly occupied spaces to have operable windows with
the capability to provide access to outdoor air during heat waves or localized power outages.

Does this option require 50% of individual occupants within regularly occupied areas to have this access, or does this require 50% of the regularly occupied areas of all regularly occupied areas to have this access, no matter how many people will be able or not able to use this option within compliant Regularly occupied space directly? (Meaning 3 people will and 2 people might not have option to use window, will that count as area with access and be considered in the 50% requirement, or is the individual occupant seats considered? )