LEED V4 Reference Guide

Erika - There are numbers in the LEED v4 checklists, which helps with the loss. I was surprised by the lack of numbers in the Reference Guide too.

Michelle,

I understand you posted your reply in April, but as of today, neither the LEED Checklists nor the LEED Scorecard identify prerequisite/credit numbers—merely listing either "P" or "C" in the Checklist and "Prereq" or "Credit" in the Scorecard. When I began to update my LEED Green Associate Study Guide to v4 a few months ago, I opted for the web (subscription) version of the BD+C Reference Guide. I originally thought the numbers were being withheld until the final release. Howsoever, other than here on LEEDuser, I can find no references to prerequisite and credit numbers anywhere. This is a pretty big deal, and unless I missed it, one would logically assume USGBC would have made some effort to better inform us.

Having said this, I personally find the absence of numbers much better and easier to follow. Without sub-credits, why are numbers necessary?

I understand the limitations of them, especially across different raitng systems... errr, adaptations, and building types, but to me the numbers have always been a nice shorthand, especially when many of the credit names are a mouthful.What line would you rather say:"So team, how are we coming on Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Environmental product declarations?"OR"So team, how are we coming on MRc2?"

I'd probably ask: How are we coming on the EPDs, or raw materials, or material ingredients? Or: How are we coming on Rainwater Management? Light Pollution?

Admittedly I'm looking at this from a teaching perspective, but in my opinion the case can be made when cross-referencing rating systems. Perhaps USGBC realized this with LEED 2009. MRc6 is Rapidly Renewable Materials in NC and Schools, yet MRc6 is Certified Wood in CS, but Certified Wood is MRc7 in NC and Schools. With LEED v4 encompassing 8 BD+C rating systems, this becomes even more conflicting.

Yes, and this is clearly a strong rationale for this move. I'll be curious to see how it is adopted.Until recently, the version of LEED released in 2009 was LEED 2009. But all along some people called it LEED v3 out of habit.Now since LEED v4 came out, the USGBC website has switched to using "v3 - 2009." Plus ça change.

I heard last month that the old checklists from May 2013 that had the numbers had been replaced with new versions sans numbers. While I appreciate the challenge of numbers changing between rating systems, what thought has been given to manufacturers who need to reference LEED credits in their literature, spreadsheets, and ads? I’ve already seen credit numbers being used on several manufacturers’ websites.

The constant changing of lingo (as Tristan points out in the recent v3 - 2009 reversal) is unprofessional - especially when there is no notice and the changes backtrack on previous conventions.