Are there any portions of LEED not open for comment? In another thead I got the impression that LEED tries to align with other systems. And that desire for alignment might trump public comment. I'd prefer to make comments relating to the LEED system when LEED is open for public comments. Not having to chase after other rating systems and try to change those to have an affect on LEED. The extreme example is, if someone has a better way for energy modeling buildings (either a tweak or whole scale change) than ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G. will their public comment be giving the time of day? Or be dismissed with a "not enough information is known" comment?
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
11477 thumbs up
November 29, 2010 - 4:34 pm
Bill, I believe that the entire LEED rating system posted on the USGBC site is open for comment. Not just the "redlined" changes.Alignment across LEED rating systems (NC, NC, EBOM, etc.) means that there is an overarching theme of making similar credits have similar or the same requirements, as appropriate. It doesn't mean that something in NC isn't up for comment because it's already set in stone in Schools. Not sure if that was your question....
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
734 thumbs up
November 30, 2010 - 8:31 am
I was not referring to alignment across LEED rating systems. But alignment between non-LEED systems
- light pollution credit is aligned with the Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) draft by the IES.
- energy saving credit is aligned with ASHRAE 90.1.
- low VOC credit is aligned with Rule 1113 by SCAQMD.
- water saving credit is aligned with EPAct 1992.
- acoustic performance is aligned with ANSI S12.60.
- thermal comfort is aligned with ASHRAE Standard 55.
- green power is aligned with Green-e.
- fuel efficient vehicles are aligned with the ACEEE rating guide.
- certified wood is aligned with FSC practices.
If someone has an idea to modify or change one of these items would they have a chance? What level of supporting information is expected for its consideration? We are limited to only non-formated text in our submittals. Are the TAG members from some of these other organizations and we'd have to convince them not to use their own idea in favor of ours?
I don't have a problem using existing systems from other organizations if they work. But if I'm convinced that it doesn't work and want to offer an alternative solution I'd like to know the time I put into the public comment won't be wasted.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
November 30, 2010 - 8:39 am
I see what you mean. Very good question.I am curious to hear a USGBC answer to this, but my understanding is that USGBC is not beholden to any of these groups to use their standards. For example USGBC has chosen to refer to FSC, but now there is a possible move away from that being exclusive, toward a benchmark system. In this example, a LEED public comment couldn't affect change to FSC's standards, but it could affect how LEED refers to FSC.Tangentially related to this, USGBC is also developing a "standard for standards" that it references in LEED.
Christina Macken
Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4U.S. Green Building Council
141 thumbs up
December 3, 2010 - 10:18 am
Hi Bill and Tristan -
Every credit and prerequisite that is new or has been modified in some way (including deletion) is open for comment. All aspects of those credits are open for comment, including the referenced standards. We are trying to evolve LEED in a way that moves toward more absolute performance metrics wherever possible - giving project teams the performance goal to reach without dictating how projects get there. If you have information that can show us additional standards that will move the LEED requirements toward more absolute performance metrics, we would encourage you to proivde us with that information. Please suggest it though public comment.
Susann Geithner
PrincipalEmerald Built Environments
1297 thumbs up
December 22, 2010 - 7:46 am
I haven't read the new draft yet, but what Bill was mentioning above does sound a lot like the USGBC finally does make their requirements more independent from third party systems.
I work a lot on no US based projects and I'm all for this kind of change. Because third party ratings systems, which are for the most part US-systems, put a big burden on non US projects. So far we had to use US products even though regional products would meet the intent of the credit also, but do not have the US label. Another example is the green-e power. There are barely any green power provider in Europe with this US-based label, but indisputable much more green power production in Europe than there are in the US. So why shouldn't I be able to take credit for it. I know I could always try to use special circumstances or CIRs to work around it, but this should be the exception not the rule. With a largely growing market for LEED outside the US and the need of international companies to rate and compare their buildings across the world this is overdue and I'm all for it.
In regards to the FSC certified wood same thing, there are other ratings out where. Why should the USGBC favor one over the other, if it can prove to be as good as FSC.