LEED 2012 must be approved by a quorum of the Consensus body

There doesn't seem to be a confirmation screen acknowledging a successful opt-in. There should be a virtual "I registered to vote" sticker, followed next month by an "I voted" pin!Wait.. okay, I did get a confirmation email, complete with the lovely quote from Scot.

I'm wondering if there isn't anyway to comment on credits for which there were no changes following the last public comment. I'm still very concerned about the LEED ND NPD Prereq 3 on Open and Accessible Communities. The 2012 addition requires that no more than 10% of a ND site be in gated communities. This requirement seems to me to be double-dipping with the number of intersections required outside of gated communities (which is a perfectly fair prerequisite requirement). If I can pass the intersections prerequisite for an open and accessible community, then why is there now proposed to be a catch-all and arbitrary 10% cap on top of it? That requirement will disqualify many international projects, especially in cities where significant and real security issues exist, where single family homes, townhomes and rowhouses cannot afford private unit-level manned security. Many neighborhoods developed under such conditions in fast-growing countries like Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, etc, in cities with high crime rates, are done with combinations of single family and multi-unit residential buildings. Larger apartment buildings can potentially still pass the minimum intersections test, because multi-unit buildings - which have sufficient scale for manned-building-level security - don't need to be behind a neighborhood or block/cluster-level gate, but single family homes with separate street entrances (such as row-houses and town-houses) don't have that option. Effectively, the 2012 change will bias development toward multi-unit buildings and away from equivalently dense town-house/row-house configurations, in those locations. That cannot be the USGBC's intention. I am hoping there is still some scope for consideration of this issue between LEED ND 2012 is finalized. Despite previous comments entered on this issue (my understanding), I do not feel that all of the relevant issues have been fully addressed, and, as it is, I believe that enacting 2012 as-is, with this changed prerequisite, will disqualify quite a few otherwise sustainable projects from considering LEED ND.

This public comment phase ends just a couple days before the voting begins. What you see in this 4th draft is what we are voting on.

Recently attended a seminar on changes and I can assure you adding prerequisites will prohibit participation. The greater the complexity - the greater the cost and the lesser value in using LEED. Most attendees agreed that they would utilize Best Practices and forego the LEED convolution. I'm all for raising the standards - but the goal should be challenging upward from a base rather than being exclusionary.

Response to Bill Swanson's comment above: That means this isn't a comment period....just an FYI for review before voting ?? So we really cannot affect any more change....just vote YES or NO ?? I agree with comments above that it looks much improved from 3rd comment period info, however there is still huge, substantive change which is expected with a new full version. With the slow-down from the economy & therefore construction starts, we're all still trying to get 2009 interpreted & LOv3 to work. So the concept of a new version, V4 implemented 6 months after Greenbuild is not one which will be easily embraced by the decision-makers, i.e. developers nor easily sold by us, the LEED professionals. I agree it will setup more projects following Best Practices or LEED-certifiable, unless LEED is required by local jurisdiction mandate.

Per USGBC website: "The LEED 2012 fourth public comment period is open from May 11 - May 28 (11:59 pm ET). Fourth public comment is an opportunity for stakeholders to review what we consider to be a final version of the rating system that will move forward to ballot. A number of key changes have been made to address the technical and market issues voiced throughout the course of previous comment periods. This version is intended to show the technical requirements up for ballot, short of any clarifications or non-substantive changes that come up during fourth public comment."

Bill and Pat, my (admittedly limited) understanding is that USGBC must have a public comment for any "significant" change to the rating system in advance of ballot as per ANSI (?) rules. Apparently there is no requirement that they listen to the comments. Given that there are still some goofs I certainly hope that minor changes still may be feasible.

I have it on pretty good staff authority that the opening vote date listed on the website is likely to change soon and that there WILL be a reasonable period for USGBC review of comments and adjustment of credit language before the final goes out to ballot. Phew. Of course there is also high pressure to get this to ballot so I'm sure they are going to be looking for how to tweak the language and stay under the "significant" change rule. Stay tuned for a revised notice.

A delay might be advisable, as long as it is used to consider some of the issues and member concerns more intelligently and carefully. Forcing it to a vote because of the PR timetable will likely result in compromising the integrity of LEED and our consensus process for decision making.

I heard the same as Tom - hopefully we'll hear more soon. Although USGBC will be required to respond to comments, we still are still not likely to see significant change unless there's enough uproar to cause a 5th draft - but I haven't hear a push for this (yet).

Great string of comments. While I have always considered like Rob that the changes are radical the latest comment period documents for EB do NOT cause me great concern (perhaps I've just been beaten down)...but we've carefully gone through each of the credits and for EB don't believe that V4 is unworkable in the marketplace. Do I absolutely LOVE it...no, but we can live with it and make it work. I've got three buildings sentup into the 'call for pilots' as detailed above..and hope that we get this thing underway. In answer to the comments in 'MPR's'...we've always had mid version changes that have helped to clarify certain operations of the MPR's...having a mandatory re-cert would get my vote.

Forget the vote. Let's just call V4 a beta and make it really clear that the next year is shakedown.

Yea, as it stands now, v4 IS a bit a 'shakedown' by certain segments of the construction industry, who are trying to shake it down even further. ;o)

Tom, I sincerely hope that the beta period PRECEDES the ballot, as you suggest. What we will find is that some of what has been posited doesn't work, some of what looks scarey is pretty easy and some of the market transformations will fall into place. Unfortunately, if we have already balloted, we are stuck with the stuff that doesn't work for three years unless we want to undertake single attribute balloting on fixes. That sounds like a nightmare. Rus

Rob, Some number of days ago, your post suggested that you were planning to do the killer analytical matrix that would make this all clear. I've been checking every day to see what you came up with. Did you have time? Can you share your conclusions? Eagerly, Rus

Any prospect that they'll reopen registration for the Consensus, now that they've postponed the balloting?

Rob - I don't always agree with you regularly, but have to say I'm THRILLED to hear your view on hitting pause and making the darn thing work right before bringing it to market. Your voice is much better respected (and heard) than some of ours, regardless of the success and longevity of our practices, so thank you for stating the obvious - and sticking to your guns.