LEED AP Credit

It is not a blatant attempt by the USGBC to increase its numbers, it is the next step in LEED by improving the rating system and moving the requirements to the next level. Remember, it is all about market transformation, once the market has caught up, you push it to the next level.

It's actually 3 people. One AP with relative specialty, + 2 others who can have any AP specialty or be GA's.

So legacies are worthless now? I'm sure that will go over well.

Well, I see requiring LEED AP+ is a step forward. It makes the LEED professional contribution current and valuable to the project. Besides it is a credit and if the team does not have enough LEED APs the project does not have to pursue this credit.

I agree that 3 might be a bit much, perhaps 1 LEED AP+ and 1 LEED AP GA will be more reasonable.

The way I read it, you can satisfy the requirements with as few as two professionals: one LEED AP+ with a relevant specialty and one LEED GA would be compliant. It's a bit ambiguous, though: the word "Additonal" does point to three individuals.It's unfortunate that USGBC doesn't distinguish itself more clearly from GBCI. In theory, only GBCI collects LEED AP dues, so a change to the LEED standard would be separate from that kind of consideration. However, the distinction between the two organizations is quite muddy. Also, USGBC benefits from CE requirements, as the biggest education provider and the only Education Review Board.I'm of two minds about the requirement. On the one hand, it's annoying that the credential could just become outdated in this way.On the other hand, the LEED AP credit was such a gimme that it would be silly to not consider making it more stringent in some way.Arguably, though, the proposed Integrated Process credit is a more meaningful way to do this.

Somehow this is yet another step in devaluing what an experienced LEED AP brings to a project - owners are still so clueless about the experience rather than passing the test. Design firms who have loads of AP's on staff and then assign an entry level designer or intern to actually manage the project are probably to blame for this increased and ridiculous threshold. If we stopped marketing the letters and got around to marketing the experience of the specific individual who will be managing the entire LEED strategy this might not be happening - but that is probably asking way too much.

Has there been any clarification if you need 2 or 3 people now for this point?

And what are the legal repercussions for invalidating legacy AP's? Wasn't there some sort of promise/contract that AP's would always be able to earn a point towards LEED? Won't this lead to another time consuming lawsuit?

Bill, I think it's important to note that USGBC released a first draft of the new LEED—it's not a fait accompli.My mindset with this draft is to take the kind of things you're hitting on, and submit them as comments to USGBC, namely:1) The wording is confusing—can you meet the credit requirements with 2 people?2) Legacy LEED APs are going to feel that the proposed revision unfairly shuts them out. Fallout from this, e.g. lawsuits, could far outweigh any benefit of an effort to make the credit more technically stringent.USGBC has invited LEEDuser to use this forum as a public comment forum, so I"ll do just that.As I said above, I'm of two minds about the proposal. In general I like seeing LEED get tougher over time, and IDc2 has been the easiest credit in LEED. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's fair to bounce legacies out like this.For the legacy LEED APs (or anyone else) who disagrees with this direction, I would love to get beyond the kvetching and hear a good counter-argument. What is the best argument for keeping the credit as-is? Or if you agree that it should be tougher, how would you like to see that happen?

I think USGBC has created themselves a problem with the original desire to get as many people accredited as possible. Their current proposal is not too bad if they were starting from scratch. But since they have the luggage of their old promises I think the best of a bad situation is not pretty. LEED AP's would be worth a total of 2 points rather than just one.

IPc2.1: 1-point:
The inclusion of any LEED AP as an integral member of the design team.

IPc2.2: 1-point:
The inclusion of a LEED AP with relevant specialty as an integral member of the design team. And a second project team member who can either be an AP with specialty (any) or a GA. (Neither of these two individuals can be the person claiming the point in IPc2.1.)

I think you make a great point.On your proposal, I agree that in some ways it's the best of a bad situation, but it's not pretty, mainly because 2 points out of 110 seems excessive. I wonder if LEED will have to go to half points for some credits or credit options in the next version, due to the way the draft is written. In that case perhaps half a point for each half of your proposed IPc2 would be workable (though not pretty).

I don't think half points help. The original promise was that the AP could earn a point. It's already been diminished since it used to be 1 out of 69 possible. Now it's 1 out of 110 points. That's 63% of it's original value. Two points out of 110 for AP's is closer to it's original value.

Yes this point has always been a gimme. But how much can USGBC devalue the AP's. One AP used to be worth 3.8% of the points towards a certified project. With the current proposal, one AP is worth 0.8% of the points towards a certified project. With the increased burden of being an AP and it's decreased value, is it still worth being an AP?

I’m not sure how many people remember, but there was a time when there was an ID credit for project team members in addition to the LEED AP (owner, engineer and architect) to become LEED APs. Over time that ID credit disappeared, but the credit is still a gimme. I see the proposed change as an attempt to evolve the credit (and green design in general) and make the credit less of a gimme…which I think is good.

I think the important thing to remember is the intent of the credit and of a LEED AP. The LEED AP, among other things is supposed to guide the process and manage LEED online, while being an advocate and “expert” in sustainable design and green principles.

The biggest problem I see with the credit is that almost anyone involved with the project can claim that credit, regardless of what level of involvement they have and what benefit they bring to the LEED/Sustainability/Green process. I’ve seen a number of projects go through certification and earn that point, while an inexperienced person does the documentation and manages the LEED process.

I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this proposed change, since I first saw it. I’d like to see the credit change, and possibly even a prerequisite added…something like:

PF prereq. 1 – LEED/Green Design Leadership

Intent: To encourage and educate green design principles and sustainability throughout the project.

Requirements:
1.) The LEED Project Administrator or person designated by them, will serve as the “champion” for green design principles, throughout the project.
2.) The “champion” will:
a. Be accredited as a LEED AP (with or without specialty) or
b. Be accredited as a LEED Green Associate or
c. Be accredited under a comparable different rating
d. Complete a minimum of ## (8?) hours continuing education during the project, ## (3?) of which must be LEED specific to the project rating system (these hours can be concurrent with other projects completed during the same timeframe)
3.) The “champion” will document and report information about the project including:
a. A summary of green design principles employed for major building elements and systems (site, envelope, HVAC, plumbing, electrical)
b. A description of team organization and how it fostered integrated design and green principles
c. “Lessons learned” derived from input from each key discipline and provide a report of these findings to all project members including:
i. Documentation process and requirements
ii. Summary of GBCI review
iii. Methods for improvement

PF Credit 2 – LEED Accredit Professional

Intent: To support and encourage the project team integration required by a LEED project and to streamline the application and certification process.

Requirements:
1.) The LEED Project Administrator or person designated by them, will:
a. Be accredited as:
i. A LEED AP (with a specialty applicable to the project)
ii. A LEED AP (without specialty) under the supervision of a LEED AP (with specialty applicable to the project)
iii. A LEED AP (without specialty) that completes a minimum of ## (8?) hours continuing education during the project, ## (3?) of which must be LEED specific to the project rating system (these hours can be concurrent with other projects completed during the same timeframe)
b. Provide a minimum ## (two?) hours of instruction or training to at least ## (two?) project members who are not accredited as a LEED AP (with or without specialty), LEED Green Associate or accredited under another rating system (Hours will be for each project member, not total)
i. Instruction shall include at a minimum:
1. Overview of LEED rating system
2. LEED documentation requirements and process
3. Role of the LEED AP
4. Etc.
2.) The Project Administrator will:
a. Identify and document inconsistencies, required clarifications and other information regarding MPR, LEED guidance documents, prerequisites/credit requirements, documentation, LEED Online, etc. for inclusion in LEED’s continuous improvement process

I know there’s a lot there, and many probably don’t agree, but…thoughts?

Often, the LEED AP on a project is an employee of the architectural or engineering firm during new construction/retrocommissioning. One of the issues I see to the integrated process is once the construction/commissioning is complete, the owner of the building has no "on-site" resource to go to for the maintenance and up-keep on the original design standards or intent of LEED.

If USGBC wants to encourage evolution of the standards by adding credits for additinal AP's on a project, then I recommend the additional credit only being applicable if the 2nd AP on a project team is an accredited LEED AP O&M that is an employee of the building owner.

This demonstrates full-cycle integration, which USGBC supports, but can not police. Having the continuity of a new construction project team member on-site after construction, in my opinion, is the evolution of higher value for LEED buildings.

Owners should be encouraged, possibly through this additional credit, to have a LEED AP O&M professional on their staff post construction. It may be the best way to ensure that the building is being properly maintained post construction and it is a great segway to applying for LEED O&M certification once the building has been occupied for 12 months.

Unless the second AP on a project provides on-going value to the building, I see no value to the building owner to have a 2nd AP from the architectural firm on a new construction project just to get an extra credit.

Michelle Jones, Ithaca College, Energy Manager, LEED GA

Hi Michelle -

That's a very interesting suggestion - thank you.

Thank you everyone for the feedback on this credit so far. We will continue to evolve this credit for the next version based on your feedback. Please keep in mind that regardless of how the LEED AP is recognized and incentivized in the version we are targeting to release in Q4 2012, updates will NOT change the current requirements in version 2.2 or version 3.

Bill,
Why are you so angry? Try to count to ten, slowly.

How about we copy BREEAM again and use some of their methodology again? They seem to have went through all of the same issues raised above also.
"BREEAM APs provide the design team with expert advice on built environment sustainability, environmental design and environmental assessment. They will facilitate the team's efforts to successfully schedule activities, set priorities and negotiate the trade-offs required to achieve a target BREEAM rating when the design is formally assessed.
Up to two BREEAM credits are available if a BREEAM AP is engaged from an appropriate point in the project."
Read all about it at http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM_AP_FAQs_12_Nov_2009.pdf

Pete,

To put the LEED exam cost in perspective the BREEAM AP costs ~ $1,300 and travel plus a nice ~ $250 per year directory fee. I would say they are both worth the cost if you're serious about the sustainability business.

Why? Because I have a pulse and care about the outcome. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." "As you gain experience, you'll realize that all logical questions are considered insubordination." Just going with the flow should be a crime.

I thought I've been very cordial in this topic and have been offering practical solutions.

I don't see how BREEAM relates. I'm discussing the promises that USGBC has made to the AP's who helped build the LEED name-brand over the last 10 years. The idea of treating legacy AP's as worthless does anger me.

oh!
1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10
USGBC please don't break your promise. Darn, it's still coming out. Any other ideas?

What promise was made, because I seemed to have missed it?
It doesn't take much effort to become a non-legacy LEED AP......

once on the USGBC website, "You do not need to pass more than one exam track in order to become a LEED Accredited Professional. All LEED APs are eligible to earn one point towards certification under ID/IU Credit 2 by serving as a principal participant on a project team regardless of which exam track was achieved."

Bill, as you know I sympathize with your perspective here, but I don't quite buy the argument.What makes IDc2 so much different than EAc1, for example?In October 2005 it was accurate to say that you could improve over ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 42% and earn 10 LEED points. This appeared on the USGBC website in the credit requirements for EAc1.It was clear that that was applicable to LEED-NC v2.2, and when LEED 2009 came out I didn't hear anyone say, "But USGBC said in 2005 that if we improved over ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 42% we could earn 10 LEED points and now that's changed!?"USGBC has made it clear that continuous improvement is part of LEED. We expect that in energy, why not expect that in integrated design process, in a credit that 100% of LEED-NC projects earn?I'm not a huge fan of LEED CMP or of the specialty system, and for people streaming to become LEED APs in 2009 perhaps someone should have tapped them on the shoulder and said, "You know, this credential, great as it is for LEED v2 and LEED 2009, may not be valued in the same way under LEED 2012," and I don't think that happened.That said, I think we need to see more credible arguments against this proposed change than something that appeared on the USGBC website years ago.(My proposal, by the way, is to simply get rid of the credit.)

I can see the point about the credit not being relevant; however I also don't think just because 99% of projects achieve the credit it should be discarded. Perhaps the requirement should be increased? (I think back to the water efficiency requirements, everyone was earning the points so it became as prerequisite and increased in difficulty) As I mentioned before I like some elements of the BREEAM AP. In order to earn the point the AP has to be a part of the project from a very early and clearly defined stage and the role / expectations are clear on what that person should do.

The following submittal doesn't really require added value to a project:
1. Provide the name of the LEED AP
2. Provide the name of the LEED AP's company
3. Provide a brief description of the LEED AP's project role(s)
4. Provide a copy of the LEED AP certificate

My suggestion to discard the LEED AP credit is linked  to the fact that an Integrated Design credit is slated to be introduced in the new draft of LEED.The value of the LEED AP credit on projects has been twofold:- Have someone on the team who knows LEED.- Have someone on the team who is an advocate for integrated design. In my opinion, the second point is superseded by the new integrated design credit. The first point really is its own reward and may no longer warrant 1 point out of 100.That said, I think you make a good point, that one way of making the credit tougher without taking legacy LEED APs out of the equation would be to increase the documentation requirements. How did the LEED AP bring value to the project? In a way this is redudant with an integrated design credit, but perhaps it would be seen as a "lite" version of that credit.

A couple of design workshops aren't enough. In my view sustainable projects need an advocate all the way through the process, while integrated design is absolutely required, a value engineering exercise could wipe away all of that good design work later. If the LEED AP credit goes away then the currently proposed integrated design section needs to be toughened up.

As an example I think the BREEAM criteria has a nice process with two stages.
First credit
1. BREEAM performance objectives are agreed, (and must be achieved at final certification – see Compliance Notes below) no later than the end of the design brief stage (e.g. RIBA Stage B or equivalent procurement stage).
2. The appointed BREEAM Accredited Professional or SQA is given the opportunity to attend key design team meetings (see Compliance Notes below) held from the start of RIBA Stage B (Design Brief) up to and including Stage E (Technical Design) or equivalent, and is to be included on the circulation list for minutes from all meetings.
3. A Design stage assessment report is submitted to BRE for interim certification.

Second credit
4. The first credit is achieved.
5. The project is reviewed against BREEAM performance objectives by the appointed BREEAM Accredited Professional or Suitably Qualified BREEAM Assessor (SQA) no later than the end of the Pre-Construction stage (e.g. RIBA Stage H (Tender Action) or equivalent procurement stage).
6. The appointed BREEAM Accredited Professional or SQA is given the opportunity to attend key design team meetings held from the start of RIBA Stage F (Production Information) up to and including Stage K (Construction to Practical Completion) or equivalent, and is to be included on the circulation list for minutes from all meetings.
7. A Post Construction stage assessment report is submitted to BRE for final certification.

Then I'd suggest that USGBC be a whole lot more up front about what's temporary. How does anyone know that 10 years from now the AP is only a stepping stone and LEED requires Fellows working on projects? Just to keep the credits advancing.

I'm sure if we asked every LEED AP who tested before June 2009 if they thought when they took their test that their AP would ever become obsolete I doubt we'd find anyone who would say they knew it was just temporary. They took it before the deadline because they didn't want the temporary AP from testing later. We didn't just convince ourselves of this.

I don't think this credit has ever been about improving the building. There is no evidence that an AP provides buildings on average better built, healthier to be in, or are more efficient. I've always viewed this credit as a carrot for people to earn the AP.

If the AP is worth their weight they would be able to earn more points on the project from their participation and knowledge. The score of a building should be based on the result, not the process.

I view this credit as different then the others simply because of statements made by USGBC outside of LEED. If they started out by saying v2.0 AP's could only count on v2.0 projects and v2.1 AP's towards v2.1 projects then I would agree. But they marketed the AP as universally applicable to all versions and all tracks because they wanted it attractive to people thinking about taking the test. They've dug their own hole by trying to develope cross-marketing brands. LEED and the AP. I don't see how their gaffe makes me the bad person for not agreeing to it.

I think a person with a CEM certificate from AEE on the design team and another on the maintenance staff would be more benefitial. Is there a chance to open this credit to other professional certification programs? The AP is no longer part of USGBC domain. GBCI took it over. I don't see why this can't be opened to other organizations if the two truely are separate.

It would be a whole lot easier if this credit went away. Not a prereq or credit. Let the value of a LEED AP stand on it's own. The cynic in me doubts they would ever give that carrot up. I'd give up any anger towards this change if the whole credit went away. Even though I wouldn't be able to earn my promised point anymore. See, I'm offering a compromise.

Tristan, I am going to agree with you. This credit should be dropped from the standards. Frankly, I did not get my AP or decide to proceed with the AP+ due to being able to get a client this credit...as an engineer about the only time we got be the person for this credit was our own building addition!

The reason we have the number of AP's and AP+'s is to show our prospective clients (owners and architects) that we care about sustainablity, and took the time and effort to gain some level of certification to that end. It also gives some credibility as you make comments since you made that effort.

I agree with the idea of dropping the IP Credit: LEED AP.

The IP Credit: Integrated Process for EBOM could be modified to include a recommendation to use an integrated team including LEED APs to develop and implement policy regarding building operations and maintenance…since the intent of the Credit states, "Engage all key project team members for the purpose of making cost- and environmentally-effective integrated decisions throughout the design and construction process."

Bill, I know I may be commenting on this late.
Just really started reading this board today.
Your comment "I'm sure if we asked every LEED AP who tested before June 2009 if they thought when they took their test that their AP would ever become obsolete I doubt we'd find anyone who would say they knew it was just temporary. They took it before the deadline because they didn't want the temporary AP from testing later. We didn't just convince ourselves of this."
is right on.
In 2.2 or 2009 my LEED AP status gave the same relevance as a LEED with Specialty.
The comment above that it's easy to convert is a little misleading.
There is no reason to convert under 2009.
By the time this draft become reality in 2012 the conversion option will be gone and basically you can only retest.
My office makeup has more than half the staff holding an AP, with only two individuals converting to the NC Specialty.
Many of us were taking some training to stay current a week or so ago when the discussion about the LEED Accredited Professional credit came up as it relates to the draft 2012.
It's caused quite a stir. Many thinking of converting now before the 2011 deadline utilizing the training option were surprised to find out from USGBC (by phone this week) that any training taken before converting will not count.
Thus each will be looking at 30 hours of prescriptive training after converting and before August or October.
As basically an organization/building owner with over $2,000,000,000.00 in design or construction over the next several years, registered or expected to be based on LEED principles to the maximum extent, it was not what most of us were looking forward to.