Surprised

As one of Barry's 'nattering nabobs' (see below), I continue to be very worried that people will get what they asked for. I really wanted to approve the standard, but Rus's comments above summarize my concerns exactly, which is why I voted no. The field is exactly the WRONG place to 'scratch out' a system that actually works.

I really hope that the very real technical and market issues that I believe USGBC has failed to address in v4 do not come back to bite us.

Ironically, we ended up with a 'speed is quality' argument to try and get the standard out. As the original Chair of the Steering Committee, I successfully fought most early attempts to put standards out prematurely because of the potential harm to market uptake--and that was when we were only doing a few tens of millions of ft2 per year. Now that we have some real volume, I really hope I'm wrong in fearing that a v4 mis-step on the heels of the 2009 functionality nightmare could winnow LEED down to a shadow of its former self.

Who knows, maybe 5th time--if there is one--will be the charm...Barry?

I'm not saying change is not good but can anybody tell me when we made all these comments who replied to them?
I have been working with a couple of LEED consultants that asked about the v4 IAQ testing. They were asked to do a mach sampling program however they could not get one answer from USGBC. They went from VOC's and now added SVOC's which anybody knows that you need heat to drive off SVOC's. So what do you do heat the building to high temperatures to drive them off...Oh wait now your creating false/positives’ for VOC's...and this is just one small segment in the IAQ testing...Barry do you have any ideas to help me on this issue?

Rob, Appreciate your comment, but it HAS passed and by a big margin, so what do you suggest we do?....we can't sit on the fence, it will be 'in-force' from November.
90% of what was delivered by the V4 vote actually works....and works very well (let's hear it for LEED EB ...again) and the other 10%?...well is LEED perfect?- NO!
Do I want to start all over again with V5...absolutely...sign me up!

Hi Barry--You're absolutely correct that there is a lot of great stuff in v4. When taken individually, it's all good. Together, not so much.

The point is not sour grapes. The vote was decisive, but I feel a pit in my stomach--the gut that did me pretty well when trying to toe that line between 'far enough' and 'too far'. That being said, we'll all have to get behind it and make it work.

At this stage, all we CAN do is what you said: 'Scratch it out in the field.' I'm a strong proponent of avoiding the 'perfect being the enemy of the good' but, by the same token, hoping to pull an inside straight is not necessarily a winning strategy.

The USGBC is so professional and tight in so many respects, but the LEED development process continues to be chaotic sausage-making.

Back in 2005 I proposed that a strict product development process be used--similar to the one used by pretty much every consumer product firm of any size and caliber--but still nothing has happened. I just don't know how much longer USGBC can continue to be 'lucky' on this.

Yup, it passed - big whoop. I'm with Melissa, Rob and Russ - many of my peeps who have a long history of supporting all things LEED voted no, or voted yes 'while holding their nose' as one friend put it. I wonder how many of the yes votes came with qualifications/comments. And how many abstentions there were because people could not come to a definitive conclusion as to how to vote.

I guess we're going to find out whether 90% of LEED v4 'works well', as Barry put it - where did that stat come from? Even if that were true, that pesky 10% could be the chemical laden poison pill.

We shall see - I hope for a positive outcome, but I remain concerned for the future of LEED.

OK Barry you answered Rob's question how about mine!!! How do you do an IAQ test when the method you chosen can't be done? If you know how or whom I can contact to get answers from please let me know. I have consultants going frantic because there is no one that can do it. USGBC will not respond to me and has put me on a call waiting list for over 9 months now...

Russ, can you explain the issue a bit more. In the v4 IAQ Assessment credit, there is a new requirement to test for "Target chemicals listed in CDPH Standard Method v1.1, Table 4-1, except formaldehyde." This is often referred to as CA Section 01350.But there is no mention of heating to drive off chemicals, or chamber testing, as the test method cited is ASTM D5197, same as for other key chemicals like formaldehyde. Now, I don't know anything about ASTM D5197. Does it use heat or a chamber test?

I'm sure you're aware, but it hasn't been Section 1350 since February, 2010, so hopefully LEED v4 is not still using the old version. I expect some folks may still be referring to 1350, out of habit, but we don't want to confuse folks. Currently it is called "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1." Note that this is intended for chamber testing for VOCs, not on-site testing, and I don't think SVOCs are included in the chamber testing.

http://www.cal-iaq.org/phocadownload/cdph-iaq_standardmethod_v1_1_2010%2...

I'm not an IAQ gal and my focus has been on the MR Credits for v4, so I'm not sure what Russ is asking, but it sounds like he's talking about on-site testing issues involving Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs).

Melissa asks how many folks voting actually read LEED v4- I agree consensus bodies require engaged informed electorates and believe that the majority our LEED electorate is both.