LEED v4.1 draft changes to the EPD credits - review of what's changed, what it means, and what still needs to change

Hello Panu, 

Thank you for the feedback on LEED v4.1 and the EPD credits. When writing the changes for v4.1, the intent was not to disrupt the current EPD marketplace or make invalid many of the existing EPDs. The requirements were intended to largely remain the same as v4 but with some updated guidelines, specifically for the third party verified EPDs that are now worth a 1.5 product "multiplier."  

We will look to make clarifications to the language as we update the v4.1 credits during quarterly addenda and will be providing further clarifying language to the EPD credit over the course of this year. Also, for projects that substitute v4 credits for the v4.1 credit, we will be working with those project teams as they gather the appropriate documentation. 

Thank you, 

Wes Sullens,

Director, Materials & Resources

The company I work for went through a large effort to create company/product specific type III EPD's for our products so we could stand out from the other generic industry wide EPD's.  Now it seems they are worth the same amount.  Did we do lot of work for nothing?  Our EPD's are externally verified but the LCA was just internally verified so we cannot get the 1.5 multiplier.  To get the LCA externally verified is a significant extra cost when the company that created our EPD's are experts at it.  Very frustrating.  

Could someone explain to me what is intended by having a product-specific EPD undergo external verification and external critical review? When verifying an EPD the background report will go through a review by a single expert and then the EPD will be verified. How will this external critical review be any different than the review already done through the program operator? 

I can't speak to what the USGBC intended for the change, but I can say why a company may want to do both (i.e. an LCA Critical Review and EPD Verification) on the same product.

If you want to make public, comparative statements (e.g. our product's new design/formulation reduces life cycle GHGs and energy use by 50%) a critical review of the LCA is recommended even if its not required. Then, you develop that LCA into an EPD with the required verification so you can meet the requirements of specific clients or programs, such as LEED.

I have also encountered a program operator that required a critical review of the LCA before they would allow verification of the EPD. However, if the EPDs are overseen by a competent program operator with a well-developed PCR, the EPD verification should be similar enough to an LCA critical review to not require the latter.

Can someone explain to me the Option 2 Multi-Attribute Optimization in LEED 4.1?

I see alot of the info in the EPDs but not sure how to know how to read if there are "impact reductions in GWP, etc. etc."  to know if the EPDs are including this info.

THanks

In correction ID#100002454 (Nov 2020) this appears to be addressed.  Do that sound right?

Description of Change

In second paragraph under Beta Update, replace "critical review" with "verification of the LCA" 1. Under Step-by-Step guidance, Option 1 EPD, Step 3: Count compliant products and materials and compile documentation, replace the first paragraph as follows: Follow LEED v4 guidance keeping in mind that products with product-specific LCAs or EPDs meeting more than one criterion are now all equally weighted at the same valuation factor of 1 product. However, Type III EPDs that include external verification of the EPD declaration and external verification of the underlying LCA data are valued as 1.5 products. A Type III EPD is considered externally verified if the person conducting the third-party verification of the underlying LCA data is independent and outside of the organization (as per ISO 14025 and EN 15804 or ISO 21930) in which the EPD is developed.