Which drawing set is required for LEED documentation?

Thanks Marcus. 

I've found some language for the type of construction documents in places I didn't look at. 

In the LEED v4 Guidelines, page 405 Optimize Energy Performance, under requirements, it says "Establish an energy performance target no later than the schematic design phase." 

On page 410 it says "Update the proposed and baseline energy models to reflect final construction details and specifications".

Similar language is used in the "Further Explanation" of both EA Minimum Energy Performance prerequisite and Optimize Energy Performance credit.

I was looking for something a little more comprehensive, perhaps in the Minimum Program Requirements, that says which drawing set must be used. But as far as the EA energy modeling credits are concerned, these excerpts, as well as the subsequent language in the section, state pretty clearly what the model needs to reflect. It goes as far as saying that Value Engineering exercises during construction might affect building efficiency and credit achievement, and those need changes need to be addressed in the model. 

In another location, there's a discussion of the "Preliminary Energy Model", both in the credit and prerequisite sections, and they refer to the integrative process credit and it's simple box model. But I was more interested in the final documentation requirement. 

That's interesting, as enforcement of energy codes has also been weak on the state level. We work with some state programs, and sometimes a project would come along and claim significant state incentives upfront based on early energy models. During the review process for those models, one of the items we see projects push back on is "if LEED accepts it, why don't you?!". Except LEED doesn't give away taxpayer/benefit-charge money, and we're sometimes put in a tough position as a result. 

Some state programs have the good intention of helping projects by subsidizing some measures and consulting fees, but in some cases that's taken advantage of by program loopholes or exaggerated early assumptions. And typically, money that was given upfront isn't claimed back by the state program when the results claimed earlier in the process are not realized. Hence the earlier question, which will help set program requirements. There's still a loophole as LEED requires the model to be updated at as-built phase, whereas some of these incentives are granted prior to starting construction altogether. 

Agreed. The programs I've worked with split incentives, where a part is received upfront after approval of the energy model based on design documents, and the final payment is released after verification. The intent is that if some incentive was overpaid upfront (because the projected savings were never realized), the final payment will be reduced proportionally. But even with this setup, sometimes the early projections are so off the mark that -if programs were strict about it- a project should give back all it's earlier incentives. Luckily we're seeing less and less of these as the programs mature and demand more realistic assumptions and documentation. 

Having said that, LEED has the name recognition and rigor that it's often cited by professionals and administrators in the industry, which is an asset for LEED, and a motivation to push forward.