While I haven't done an in-depth review of the Credits available for input in the 6th comment period, there are a few items that, if left as is, will be dealbreakers for me. Dealbreaker meaning I will either vote 'no' for v4, or not vote at all.
1. USGBC Approved Program: As currently written in the MR Credits, this implies that changes to a Credit may be made after the Credit is approved and in play - i.e., a 'program' that comes up after v4 approval and is deemed acceptable and 'as approved by the USGBC'. No answers to my questions about this issue in this forum thread yet, so I can only quess what they have in mind.
This is a significant change in the LEED development protocol and the LEED approval process. They do not indicate whether qualified professionals will be vetting these programs, whether the general memberhip will have any input as to what might be considered to be acceptable and (oh by the way - achieveble), or whether we be able to vote on these new programs. Hmmmm...... scratching my head.....
SO, if this item stands as is, I'm reading a 'yes' vote on v4 as being a vote to give up my right to have the input that WAS the cornerstone of LEED development until the last couple of years, and potentially giving up my right to vote. Really, why would I do such a thing?!? That would be silly! So, if the 'programs approved by USGBC' after the fact concept remains, in any form, in the LEED v4 that goes to ballot - thumbs down for me.
2. LEED v4 MR Credit 4 - Material Ingredients - Disclosure and Optimization, Option 3: I was so excited and hopeful about this Credit in the last go-round. Transparency - yay! That's what this Credit was originally about. It's not about banning products, its about understanding exactly what is in various building products and thereby having a clearer choice and the ability to incorporate healthier materials. But, no more, with mucked up mess of Option 3 now on the table. Discussion on this Option 3 debacle is going on in another thread, but if it remains (in any form) in this Credit in the LEED v4 that goes to ballot - thumbs down for me.
I'll be interested to hear what others might consider to be dealbreakers, and I may pipe up again on more dealbreaker items upon further review.
Jodi Smits Anderson
Managing Principal of the Albany OfficeEYP
7 thumbs up
March 27, 2013 - 12:06 pm
Peggy, I'm glad you posted this comment. I have been bogged down in the technical aspects of this change - the complexity is truly a dealbreaker for me. As a practitioner and as a state employee involved in policy discussions, simplicity is key - what do we want to achieve and what's the simplest manner in which to get there? This confusion and complexity doesn't make this credit more likeable or useable, it only gives nay-sayers more toeholds from which to fight against the work at hand.
But you have brought up an even more fundamentally important factor, that all of us MUST pay attention to.
The process from the start of LEED system work has been transparent and inviting, and the startling implications of decisions being made without stakeholder input slipped right by me. This cannot be allowed to occur because it will undermine the greatest strenght and frankly, selling point of the system. If important decisions (on acceptable review or certification programs for example) are made by a restricted group after the public input and vote, then the true power of transformation is negated and the system ownership/control becomes dominent over the end goals.
Never good.