We are working on a LEED v.4 project. Regarding EQ Credit, Low Emitting Materials.... We are able to find product (wet applied products on site) that meet the SCAQMD VOC threshold requirements, but are having trouble finding products that meet the new v.4 Emissions requirement of CDPH Standard Method v1.1-2010. Some products even claim to contribute towards LEED credit, but have not had the CDPH testing done. It seems the industry is not yet up to speed with LEED v.4 in this case. We don't believe we can attain the EQ - Low Emitting Materials credit because of this. We would still like to pursue products that meet SCAQMD VOC thresholds, and propose to contact those that do not meet the CDPH requirement and inform them of the CDPH requirement in hopes that in the future they will pursue the CDPH Standard Method. We would log and keep track of the contact and communication with ea. manufacturer (at least 20). In our opinion doing so would push the industry, or at least those manufacturers we contact, forward to being able to contribute to LEED v.4 in the future. Is there any case in LEED 2009 where an innovation credit was approved by pushing the industry forward in a similar manner that I can refer to?
Thank you.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
August 9, 2016 - 11:34 am
Kerry, that's a really interesting approach! I am not aware of a precedent for this kind of "activist" approach in LEED. I don't recall seeing a project do this. So I think you would need to submit a CIR or otherwise communicate with GBCI to get the go-ahead.
Of course as you're probably aware this kind of approach is a big part of the Living Building Challenge, though historically USGBC/LEED doesn't take cues from LBC.