I am an advocate for raising the bar.
However, significant market buy-in has not occured. We need to stay at LEED 2009 levels for more than just 2 years. It should be more like 5. In this economy it's harder than ever to convince developers, owners, municipalities etc to buy into LEED.
I feel that USGBC/GBCI should wait a year or more to move into the next evolution.
My firm's primary client is the DOD who has stipulated that LEED 2009 Silver is a mandate, but now Gold-Platinum can not cost more and will not be considered a betterment. Gold and Platinum have been devalued erroniously becasue the Federal Government doesn't really understand it after 7 years.
LEED 2012 will most certainly have DOD and other Federal Agencies jump ship, not to mention those in the private sector. I emplore the community to encourage usgbc/gbci to wait for the next rollout. I would like to see LEED 2014 as version 4.
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
March 22, 2012 - 6:16 pm
LEED 2009 will have been around for at least 3.5 years - possibly more - when the change is made to v2012, since the first 2009 projects could first register in Q2 2009.
Also, the recent DOD LEED regulation has little to do with the cost and perception of LEED and everything to do with the wood lobby - see http://www.buildinggreen.com/live/index.cfm/2012/2/23/Are-FSC-and-LEED-K.... I also do DOD work, and my clients strongly support LEED and agressive sustainability measures that reduce total cost of ownership.
It sounds like the question is not whether or not to raise the bar, but how much to raise it? As the first big change in over a dozen years, I think that it's coming none too soon (but that some big concerns still need to be addressed prior to release).
I like the idea that, if changes continue to be this significant, then USGBC may want to go to a four year update in the future, instead of three.
Gary Shlifer MS, LEED AP BD+C, Homes
Green Building Professional LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Homes - Chief Sustainability ProfessionalGuernsey.us
22 thumbs up
March 23, 2012 - 11:24 am
I'm glad to hear your DOD clients are embracing LEED.
I'm not sure where the wood comment came from?
What is your response to: National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012’ SEC. 2830. REPORT ON ENERGY-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND
PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LEADERSHIP IN
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN GOLD OR PLATINUM CERTIFICATION. ?
I am still in the strong opinion that usgbc should wait two or more years for another rollout and to allow for markets to digest and buy into LEED 2009.
Thanks for your response.
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
734 thumbs up
March 23, 2012 - 11:34 am
LEED 2009 is not much different from v2.2. It was repackaged but the majority of Credits are the same.
The National Defense Authorization Act that you quoted is because a wood certification group that has been unsuccessful in getting their products accepted by LEED has now changed tactics to put a different pressure on USGBC. Lobby Congress to limit LEED spending. It's politics.
The DOD is using a loop hole that requires no proof other than the Contractor's word who wants the work. And the law does not say which credits need to be earned. If the most expensive credits are earned first to get a high silver rating then other credits like location are free and at no extra cost and can earn gold or platinum.
Gary Shlifer MS, LEED AP BD+C, Homes
Green Building Professional LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Homes - Chief Sustainability ProfessionalGuernsey.us
22 thumbs up
March 23, 2012 - 12:37 pm
Bill, thanks so much for the clarification and info. But again, I'll stand by my encouragment to hold the bar where it is for more market buyin and/or suppliment LEED 2009 with addenda, such as using moving to ASHRAE 90.1 2010.
Sure v3 retaines much of what v2.2 was, raising the bar in energy primarily.
There is still so much myth, misunderstandings, misconceptions of LEED and the associated costs.
No matter the politics behind 'PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN GOLD OR PLATINUM', it has sent a ripple effect throughout my firm and our client base essentially defocusing on LEED and refocusing on solely energy.
To the contrary of your comment about what credits need to be earned, much of DOD and specific RFPs are indeed stipulating what credits are to be earned and what credits cannot be pursued. For example, Green Power has long been a forbidden credit, again erroniously.
And, in the design-build world the contractor will always go for the cheapest credits first or stop at Silver any way they can.
Another ripple from this the pulling away from seeing Gold-Plantinum as a betterment. As a whole deincentivizing higher levels of sustainability and certification.
A sweeping change will hurt us all. I wholeheartedly agree that the bar needs to be raised, but incrimentally and slowly with respect to our culture.
The only solution would be 'mandates'. In the stance of voluntary, the vast majority are still focused on the bottom line, not the triple bottom line and would simply opt out, choose to reinvent the wheel or go with a lame rating system like Green Globes.