Locally sourced rebar

January 3, 2018

Michelle Rosenberger

Partner
ArchEcology

LEEDuser Premium Member

522 thumbs up

January 3, 2018

We are struggling to understand the new constraints on locally sourced products and how this new credit encourages any local sourcing at all. Nothing locally sourced earns any credit unless it has another completely unrelated attribute like recycled content or FSC to claim. Limiting the value to be claimed for regional by the dollar value of a completely unrelated attribute seems to make little sense. But even worse if the attribute is not valued at 100% of the product (recycled content vs FSC), the column that says "does the entire product meet the sustainable criteria" will result in a No. So if we are understanding this correctly, 80% locally sourced rebar that has both recycled content and harvesting/extraction within 100mi would receive credit for its recycled content but zero credit for its 80% local sourcing because 100% of the product is not local. Could this possibly be correct?

Post a reply

Paula Melton

Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.

LEEDuser Moderator

183 thumbs up

January 4, 2018 - 2:25 pm

Yes, I believe you are correct because local sourcing is now a multiplier rather than a direct credit contributor.

Michelle Rosenberger

Partner
ArchEcology

LEEDuser Premium Member

522 thumbs up

January 4, 2018 - 2:46 pm

Wow, okay. It's really hard to understand the level of dis-incentivizing that is going on in LEED v4. We just keep hoping that we are misinterpreting the requirements. But the more we learn as we delve into the particulars of credits, the more credits are off the table. We all understand raising the bar. I just don't understand making the bar undesirable to even attempt. After years of development and incremental improvement, it seems like LEED is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Does anyone understand the thinking here? Is there any reason to hope that v4.1 will actually address these issues?

Landry Watson

Assistant Vice President - Sustainability
Alexandria Real Estate Equities

LEEDuser Premium Member

29 thumbs up

January 4, 2018 - 3:02 pm

Michelle, fully agreed with your comments on this issue and as a member of the construction portion of this discipline, we are hearing similar stories of frustration from peers on achieving this credit as well. Where, we used to at least contribute some points here in recycled, regional and FSC. Now, I have no delusion that we can understand the inner thinking of the TAG, the board, and any other committees on the policy side of the USGBC who developed and released these new materials credits...so I've resolved being frustrated about it and simply moved toward developing strategies to achieve credit compliance. But we fully agree, that under the new guidelines, the rating system has significantly devalued the previous value of regional or local - that is measurable...and not an opinion.

What I'll offer you is this. Since being 'locally resourced' is now only a multiplier on the other sustainable criteria of recycled, reuse and FSC, then it would seem to benefit the project team greatly to identify items in material reuse...which can meet the definition of local in most urban markets. Some strategically selected items with high value that meet a definition of reuse...are your best chance for contributors here. Good luck and hopefully v4.1 will offer us a % option for the local source kicker.

Michelle Rosenberger

Partner
ArchEcology

LEEDuser Premium Member

522 thumbs up

January 4, 2018 - 3:09 pm

Thanks, Landry. I appreciate the response and the suggestion.

Mikhail Davis

Director of Global Market Sustainability
Interface

LEEDuser Premium Member

30 thumbs up

January 25, 2018 - 8:01 pm

One of the things to understand about LEED v4 is that it attempts to bring insights from life cycle assessment into assessment of material environmental impacts. Practitioners of LCA know that transport distance seldom affects the environmental footprint of a product by more than 10% unless you put it on a plane. This is a major factor in why there is no longer a stand-alone Regional Materials credit. They left it in as a multiplier because it does have some effect on footprint and there are obviously many other benefits to supporting the local economy. I do agree that the "all or nothing" approach taken on the multiplier should be reconsidered and I will be happy to make that point to the TAG during the v4.1 process.