I am still figuring out if I feel disappointed or relieved by the announcement- or both. I have been campaigning for the change to v4 for almost a year, and now I see that this effort has virtually been postponed. But I reckon that it was a wise move from the international perspective. I have participated in projects in three different Latin American countries, one in United Arab Emirates and one in France. In several locations, we still have to explain what an energy model is, dual-flush is a novelty, let alone rainwater harvesting, and we struggle to reconcile both ASHRAE's 90.1 & 62.1 with local legislation. So when the question about market transformation is posed, we should be aware that market has a very wide range of maturity among different countries. In that aspect, I feel the USGBC decision was right, and will help adopt v4 in the long term.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5921 thumbs up
November 20, 2014 - 9:53 am
Why can't we do both? Continue to transform the markets that are more mature and continue to transform the markets that are less mature. Extend 2009 for most international projects but keep the original v4 date for the US and Canada (and maybe parts of Europe?).