When LEED v4 BD+C was released, there were a handful of improvements that I was really excited about: the new interior lighting credit, better daylight metrics, transit points based on number of trips, and envelope and monitoring-based commissioning, to name a few. But most of all, I was thrilled about the revamp of the old stormwater credits to the new rainwater management credit.

For me, one of the most important aspects of a livable city is its vegetation. The opportunity represented by rooftops, rights-of-way, alleys, and sidewalks to both bring additional vegetation to the built environment and manage rainwater through natural systems was an untapped opportunity in most LEED projects and in most cityscapes.

So when v4 rolled out the new rainwater credit, I saw in its intent the recognition of this potential and looked forward to putting it to work.

There’s a catch

On my first v4 project—an urban office building with below-grade parking and two narrow strips of landscaping on the north and west sides of the site—I used the new credit as the basis for our approach to stormwater. Referencing the language “manage on site the runoff from the developed site … using low-impact development (LID) and green infrastructure,” we considered a series of LID strategies: green roof and contiguous planted areas above grade, and directing all roof drainage to a primary raingarden / bioswale with significant depth (2'–4') on the north side of the building.

When we went to figure out how to do the calculations to see if we were meeting the LEED v4 credit requirements, we hit a snag.

We were easily able to determine the runoff volumes from the 95^th and 98^th percentile events, but we couldn’t tell if we were “managing” the runoff, as there wasn’t a good definition of what “managing” meant. All of the site stormwater was going into the raingarden, and in doing so, was being slowed and filtered along the way—but that raingarden then drained to the city sewer.

When we sought clarification from USGBC, we eventually learned that in the context of this credit, “manage” actually means “infiltrate.” So the credit effectively means that no water may leave the site; the entire volume in question must be infiltrated on the site or reused within the building.

Wait, even green roofs?

I then asked about green roofs, the poster child for urban green infrastructure, and learned that if a green roof has an underdrain that then connects to the city storm sewer, then that green roof isn’t “managing” the rainwater per the credit language either. This is especially relevant as Denver enacts a voter-mandated green roof ordinance later this year.

It will likely come as a surprise that those green roofs don’t manage stormwater per LEED’s v4 definition.

My hope is that USGBC provides a clarification in v4.1 to keep project teams from spinning their wheels on this point, and that they modify the language to encourage the more fundamental goal of a functional urban landscape.

It may be that the intent of the credit is to intentionally equate “manage” with infiltrate. If the revised LEED v4.1 EBOM language is an indication, which revises the language “use low-impact development (LID) practices to capture and treat water …” to “use low-impact development (LID) practices to infiltrate, evapotranspirate, collect and reuse water onsite …,” that would suggest that the previous BD+C v4 language was just unclear, but not unintentional. 

A missed opportunity

If so, I think it is a missed opportunity to achieve the goal of greening our cities and urban sites by using LID to “treat” stormwater to some degree—through soil and vegetated area filtration—even if water ultimately drains from the site. Most urban projects physically cannot infiltrate rainwater back to the groundwater onsite, and reuse* can be cost prohibitive and a distraction from the primary intent of the credit (though I would like to see the Water section evolve to more explicitly recognize water reuse). 

In the end, I am pleased with where the project I described above ended up. It has a beautiful and functional vegetated landscape, and it channels nearly all of the site water through that landscape, reducing the rate of stormwater runoff and filtering the water in the process.

If infiltration is a goal unto itself, then I would suggest that the credit evolve to make this a specific requirement for those projects with a significant percentage of non-building site area to work with (e.g., suburban and rural projects), but always award non-infiltrative means of stormwater management for urban sites.

*Reuse has its own legal challenges in Colorado, where the project above is located, given the State’s restrictive water law.

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is accepting public comments on what will become the first LEED rating system for existing multifamily projects with 20-plus units.

When USGBC announced in late October 2014 (see LEED 2009 Registration Extended to October 2016) that LEED version 2009 would continue to be available for an additional 16 months—to October 2016—on top of its already unprecedented 15-month phase-out period, I was not a happy camper.

Okay, I can see what USGBC was going for: LEED v4 can push the envelope all it likes, but if it leaves the market behind it won’t have much impact anyway. By slowing down the transition USGBC is trying to bring more of the building industry along, believing that small changes on a massive scale will ultimately have more impact than big changes adopted by a select few.

The Message Matters

The announcement, however, was unfortunate. It focused on the idea that the market “isn’t ready” for LEED v4, which hardly sounds like a leadership position. If we wait until the market is ready, what are we transforming?

The press release also cited an informal poll administered at the LEED Certification Work Zone during Greenbuild, in which 61% of respondents said that they were either “not ready” or “unsure” if they are ready. To me, that result looks like a green light to charge ahead with v4: 39% say they are ready, and we still have eight months to the deadline!

USGBC also cited the slow market adoption of v4 as an indication that eliminating v2009 would be premature. The comparison offered—that there are fewer than 400 v4 registered projects one year after its launch, compared with 5,000 v2009 projects at that point in its cycle—is clearly spurious, however. For most of its first year v2009 was the only option; the prior version was phased out after the first four months.

Finally, while the announcement had a big focus on keeping international users happy, there has been no mention of what specific aspects of v4 are causing international users heartburn. I would think those users would be happy about the forthcoming Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations of LEED, and the increased support for certification coming from USGBC’s Bureau Veritas partnership (see Onsite Verification Part of LEED’s Global Vision).

Behind on energy

In the U.S., Canada, and most of Europe LEED 2009 is yesterday’s news, and no longer feels like a leadership standard. Much of its content, in fact, is straight out of LEED 2.0, which was introduced in 2000. Chasing recycled content in building materials was never much fun, but now we know that there are better ways to find preferable products.

Perhaps most importantly, however, the level of energy efficiency that earns several points in LEED 2009 won’t even meet energy code in some states, where the energy benchmark has shifted from the 2007 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1—the version on which LEED 2009 is based—to the 2010 version and soon to the 2013 version. With the newly announced extension many projects will still be achieving LEED 2009 certification in 2020, by which time Standard 90.1 will have evolved through three more cycles.

Given the excitement in the U.S. market about net-zero energy buildings—at least for certain building types—LEED’s energy efficiency metric is far from a leadership stance.

Is v4 really harder?

One irony in this whole debate is that v4 includes many improvements that actually make it easier to use than LEED 2009. Early adopters of LEED v4 with whom I’ve talked, from Texas to Eastern Europe, are finding many things that work better in v4. Even some of the new materials credits are turning out to be quite doable, and easier to manage, than the old ones, now that environmental and health product declarations are showing up in droves.

That, coupled with a greatly improved LEED Online platform, make for a better user experience, and it’s a shame so many LEED projects won’t enjoy those improvements.

LEED 2009 Extension, or v4 Delay?

USGBC staff argue that they’re not delaying the implementation of v4: it’s still available to those who choose to use it. They’re just keeping v2009 available for those who aren’t ready. The problem with that argument is that most owners want predictable results and the highest certification level they can achieve—differences between versions are lost on the marketing teams that want to leverage the LEED brand to lease up more quickly. Until v4 becomes mandatory, v2009 will be the path of least resistance to a LEED Gold plaque… or will it?

Restore the Power of v4 in Four Simple Steps

There is another shoe that has yet to drop in this saga, and that’s the matter of incentives that USGBC can introduce to nudge more projects in the direction of v4.

Here are four steps USGBC can take now that would go a long way towards rectifying the situation, without losing (much of) that important international market:

1. Update the energy benchmark in LEED 2009 to v4 levels. There is precedent for raising the bar on energy between versions, as USGBC did when it mandated a minimum of two energy points in 2007 in response to concerns that LEED was falling behind energy codes prior to the launch of 2009.
2. Eliminate both registration and certification fees for anyone who signs up for v4 now, and reinstate those fees incrementally between now and October 2016. Restoring 15% of the fee each quarter will give a lot of “act now to save!” marketing opportunities. If reduced revenue is a concern, add a premium to the v2009 fees to make up the difference.
3. Encourage people to give v4 a try and stand behind its promise by allowing anyone who registers for v4 now to “downgrade” at any time to v2009 if they’re not happy with the v4 experience (while paying the difference in fees, of course).
4. USGBC claims that market leaders will want to differentiate themselves by going with v4, but hasn’t offered any support for that differentiation. Celebrate those leaders: how about a prominent “newsfeed” on the home page featuring every v4 certification as it crosses the finish line, with kudos to the owners and project teams?

The lengthy LEED 2009 extension and the poorly considered communication about the change have left many with the impression that USGBC has gotten cold feet and is backing off from v4 entirely. It will take bold incentives like these—and ongoing robust support for the v4 rating systems—to prove that USGBC still stands behind v4 and is committed to market transformation.

What do you think? What other items would you put on this list?

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has decided that requiring new LEED projects to register for LEED v4 as of June 2015 was too soon and has shifted that date back to October 31, 2016. In an announcement released this morning, USGBC said that it was giving the market more time to get ready for LEED v4 based on feedback it received during last week's annual Greenbuild conference.

According to USGBC, 61% of respondents to a survey said they are “not ready” or “unsure” if they are ready for LEED v4 and require additional time to prepare. 

USGBC launched LEED v4 in November 2013 as a more rigorous and fresh take on the LEED green building rating system, including new concepts like product transparency, whole building life-cycle analysis, and newer energy standards. The package came with a cushion: leading-edge LEED projects could register for LEED v4 right away, but you could keep registering for LEED 2009 until the window closed in June 2015. Want to play it safe? Register your project now for LEED 2009; upgrade to LEED v4 later when the kinks are worked out.

As of earlier this month, nine LEED v4 projects had been certified (one of which has shared its full documentation with LEEDuser), and 304 had started the process by registering during 2014. That's 15 times fewer than the 4,493 LEED 2009 projects registered to date. Between those numbers, the Greenbuild survey, and other market feedback, USGBC apparently decided it had heard enough and extended the LEED 2009 window another 16 months.

In a press release, Rick Fedrizzi, CEO of USGBC, said, “When USGBC launched LEED v4 last year, we set out with one goal in mind—to raise the bar in a way that challenges the building industry to reach higher than ever before. This is our nature and USGBC and its members’ collective mission. However, the market has requested additional time to prepare for LEED v4, so we are responding. “ 

Fedrizzi added, "Our international LEED users, which account for some 50% of new LEED registrations, have also indicated they would like to have more time to move onto the new rating system. This extension will be especially helpful to them.”

The LEED v4 Materials and Resources (MR) credits have caused the most angst for LEED users, with many raising questions about whether the new Building Product Disclosure and Optimization credits are too complicated, not workable, or simply not a good idea.

That credit might get an overhaul. Also at Greenbuild last week, USGBC announced a Supply Chain Optimization Working Group, the charter of which is not confined to the vague Option 3 of Building product disclosure and optimization—material ingredients; it's also tasked with "explor[ing] new and innovative ideas to evolve" all three options of that credit, which includes a variety of programs. (Nadav Malin, president of BuildingGreen, which publishes LEEDuser, has been tasked with facilitating the working group, working with Scot Horst, chief product officer at USGBC.) 

USGBC and the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) have not announced whether the change will impact credentialing, which switched over earlier this year to LEED v4 based exams for LEED Green Associates and LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED APs). Our guess is that there will not be a change here.

Mara Baum, vice president and sustainable design leader for healthcare at HOK, reacted positively to the news. She told LEEDuser, "This will help ease the transition to a very different and challenging system for design practitioners, owners, and manufacturers alike. Progressive organizations will continue their shift towards v4 criteria, while others can continue to advance their projects with v2009. USGBC will continue to develop incentives to encourage teams to either switch to v4 or to substitute v4 credit language where appropriate."

Referring to the 18-month cushion included in the LEED v4 launch, Baum noted, "This is the second time that required registration for v4 has been delayed. The first delay allowed USGBC to put more effort into fine-tuning tools such as the online LEED credit library and Web-based reference guide. Ironically the LEED tools are more advanced at this point than they had been at the release of 2009—it’s the market that isn’t ready yet. The roll out of LEED v4 would have been particularly challenging in jurisdictions that require certification for all buildings, or all buildings of a certain size and/or typology."

What's your reaction to the extension of LEED 2009?

Sample documentation for LEED version 4 is now available on LEEDuser from one of the first certified v4 projects. The browse by rating system and credit.

This content allows LEEDuser members to see how the highest-scoring v4 project to date obtained some of the most difficult credits. Curious about the story behind the spreadsheets, LEEDuser spoke to the project team about what they found different in v4 and lessons they would pass on to other project teams.

“No pitfalls, no hiccups”

When StopWaste decided to recertify under EBOM, it chose the v4 system even though it might have been simpler to pursue LEED v2009 (which it was still eligible to register for) because it “wanted to be on the cutting edge,” Wes Sullens, policy and advocacy manager at StopWaste told LEEDuser. The building had been the first in the U.S. to achieve Platinum under LEED-NC v2.2 when it was renovated in 2007, and the organization, which is a public agency that provides source reduction and recycling programs in Alameda County, felt its mission compelled it to pursue the latest version.

When BuildingWise was recruited to be the project’s LEED consultant, Barry Giles, founder and chief executive officer of BuildingWise, said his team agreed because they “didn’t see huge changes in the [v4] rating system and what they did see, they didn’t view as detrimental. So we said, ‘Why not go forward? What’s the big snag?’”

Generally, those initial judgments about v4 were correct, according to the project team. Certification did not take longer (though there was a delay with the documentation because LEED Online was not prepared for the beta projects) and there weren’t any surprises that derailed the project. “You still have roughly the same data to gather” explains Giles, so some credits take longer than others, but those experienced with LEED will find the patterns are the same. And from the owner’s perspective “the learning curve was the equivalent” says Sullens.

As a public agency, StopWaste had to develop and get its internal policies approved, which delayed the performance start period, but the project would have had to figure that out not matter what version they were pursuing.

Tightening the belt

The team says that there were noticeable ways the new version had become more rigorous. “The bar for water metering has definitely been raised” Levi Jimenez, project manager at BuildingWise told LEEDuser. StopWaste would have needed two subsystems to achieve the metering credit, but to do that beyond the irrigation system didn’t make much sense for such a small project.

The project team also found the Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables credit much more difficult, and even after much time and wrangling trying to get it right, was not awarded the point. StopWaste’s internal policies called for all paper—the organization’s single largest expense—to be FSC-certified with 100% post-consumer recycled content.

In earlier versions, when products were counted pass/fail by cost, that might have been enough but now products are weighted and other products that didn’t meet the criteria offset the paper. “In the end, it was a disappointment that we didn’t get the credit, but it did show that the rating system had tightened up” according to Sullens. The lesson, he says, is to get your policies in place before the measurement period. “Had we made sure our purchasing policy was being followed more closely, we might have gotten the credit, so you have to settle on those policies early and review them often.”

Nomenclature and calculations

The StopWaste team also sees certain trade-off with the changes to the system’s structure and calculation tools. The lack of shorthand numbers for the credits themselves (see our Poll – Should LEED v4 Credits Have Numbers?) which “can be a bit of a logistical pain” according to Giles, but on the other, the language between EBOM and the other rating systems has been harmonized making it less of a “brain-drain” to go from one system to another, according to Jimenez.

Familiar 24-hour storm rates are no longer used for rainwater infiltration in favor of a more complicated calculation and daylighting is now calculated in lux instead of footcandles, which can be jarring. However, other calculations are much more streamlined, like how ongoing consumables, food, and durable goods are all now inputs into a single calculator, according to Jimenez.

At the end of the day, it cost around $45,000 to do the audits, the consulting, and to go after a few innovation credits, “which is a hard stepping stone for small buildings,” Sullens admits. But it is comparable to other systems says Giles, “and there aren’t a lot of options to bring that number down further,” he says. “If you want to do it right, it is always going to be paperwork, time, and money.”

Editor's note: This post was co-authored by Tristan Roberts and Candace Pearson.

StopWaste Documentation on LEEDuser—By Credit

• LTc1: Alternative transportation
• SSp1: Site management policy
• SSc3: Heat island reduction
• SSc4: Light pollution reduction
• SSc5: Site management
• WEp1: Indoor water use reduction
• WEp2:Building-level water metering
• WEc1: Outdoor water use reduction
• WEc2: Indoor water use reduction
• EAp1: Energy efficient best management practices
• EAp2: Minimum energy performance
• EAp3: Building-level energy metering
• EAp4: Fundamental refrigerant management
• EAc1: Existing building commissioning—analysis
• EAc2: Existing building commissioning - implementation
• EAc3: Ongoing commissioning
• EAc4: Optimize energy performance
• EAc7: Renewable energy and carbon offsets
• MRp1: Ongoing purchasing and waste policy
• MRp2: Facility maintenance and renovations policy
• MRc1: Solid waste management - ongoing
• MRc3:Purchasing - lamps
• MRc4: Purchasing - ongoing
• MRc5: Purchasing - facility maintenance and renovation
• EQp1: Minimum indoor air quality performance
• EQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control
• EQp3: Green cleaning policy
• EQc2: Enhanced indoor air quality strategies
• EQc4: Interior lighting
• EQc5: Daylight and quality views
• EQc6: Green cleaning - custodial effectiveness assessment
• EQc7: Green cleaning - products and materials
• EQc8: Green cleaning - equipment
• EQc9: Integrated pest management
• EQc10: Occupant comfort survey
• INc1: Innovation
• INc2: LEED Accredited Professional 

If like a lot of LEED professionals you're used to using shorthand like MRc4 to refer to the recycled content credit, and EAc1 for energy performance, LEED v4 throws a curveball into your jargon.

As presented without fanfare in the online LEED credit library, LEED v4 credits dispense with that numbering. If you are looking for a shorthand way to talk to your project team about "Building product disclosure and optimization - environmental product declarations," you'll have to make do without calling it MRc2, at least on an official basis.

For now, LEEDuser is using credit numbering for LEED v4, but we'd like to know your opinion. Please comment below, and/or take this quick poll.

Why get rid of numbering? Credit number became problematic as soon as USGBC invented a second rating system over 10 years ago. MRc4 may be familiar to many people as Recycled Content in LEED-NC v2009 (or v3 as USGBC is now calling it), but it's familiar to a whole other set of people as MRc4: Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps. Doing away with these numbers solves that problem.

Why keep it? That shorthand was really useful. I can see it now being replaced with everyone doing their own thing. LEEDuser is currently calling the LEED v4 energy credit EAc2: Optimize Energy Performance, but I've also seen it called "OEP" for short, which really threw me off.

What do you think?

With LEED v4 having been released in November 2013, and the transition away from LEED 2009 underway, the U.S. Green Building Council has announced several key dates and requirements as it shifts LEED professional credentials to LEED v4.

Project experience will no longer be an eligibility requirement for those seeking LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP) certification, according to the newly released LEED v4 candidate handbooks. That requirement, which since LEED 2009's introduction has sent aspiring LEED APs in search of friendly project teams to join, and "letters of attestation" from project administrators, has been changed to a "recommendation" in a move that is consistent with USGBC's general move to streamline LEED v4 documentation, a USGBC official told LEEDuser.

The wording of the BD+C candidate handbook states, "Prior LEED project experience is strongly recommended. Practitioner experience is critical to the LEED AP designation and, as such, project proficiency will be tested objectively within the LEED AP exam itself."

In other words, USGBC and GBCI will rely on the LEED AP exam itself to test project-ready proficiency. Unlike the LEED 2009 candidate handbook, the new handbook does not currenlty offer sample questions, but it does feature a list of "task domains" and "knowledge domains" that candidates will be tested on. Here is a short sampling:

• Ensure production of documents necessary for LEED compliance (e.g., drawings, policies, specifications, contracts, protocols)
• Coordinate and disseminate Addenda
• Submit technical questions to USGBC
• Maintain the LEED scorecard
• Suggest and promote use of innovation credits

For more information, see:

• LEED Green Associate v4 Candidate Handbook
• LEED BD+C v4 Candidate Handbook
• LEED ID+C v4 Candidate Handbook
• LEED BD+C v4 Candidate Handbook
• LEED AP Homes and LEED AP ND candidate handbooks are "coming soon"

Here are key dates:

• The last day to take the credential exams with LEED v2009 content will be June 15, 2014.
• The first day to take the exams with the new LEED v4 content will be June 30, 2014.
• No tests will be administered in between these dates.

If you fail the LEED v2009 exam and do not schedule a retake before June 15, you will have to take the v4 exam. If you become a Green Associate through the LEED 2009 exam, you can take the v4 exam to become a LEED AP. There are a lot of translation options available for the exams.

There has been some misinformation around that the LEED AP Homes credential is going away, but USGBC has confirmed that this is not the case.

What questions or comments do you have about upcoming changes to the LEED AP exams? Please post them below.

Following months of speculation by LEED users, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has announced that LEED version 4 (LEED v4) will be supported by a new LEED Online documentation platform. In contrast with the maligned LEED Online version 3 (LOv3) platform that supports LEED 2009 projects, the new LEED Online will be faster, accessible to more browsers, and more integrated with other USGBC resources, according to USGBC.

"It’s built on html, css, and Javascript," Andrew Glaros, a user interface designer at USGBC, told LEEDuser. Cutting through the programming jargon, Glaros explained, "It’s going to work exactly like the USGBC website, or 99% of the websites you see on the Internet."

Whereas LOv3 was built on a SAP interface, a custom application that hasn't worked well on many common browsers and that has been particularly hard on Mac users, the new LEED Online is built more like a regular website. According to Glaros, it is designed to integrate smoothly with the USGBC.org experience. "It should feel more or less like the same environment," he said. Integration of LEED Online into USGBC.org follows recent trends, with LEED credential maintenance having been pulled into USGBC.org (from GBCI.org) this fall.

According to Glaros, using a single log-in, users will be able to click from the LEED credit library on USGBC.org, including its credit language, online reference guides, and LEEDuser forum, over to LEED Online.

Getting there

The new LEED Online is set to open for business December 9th, according to USGBC.

The existing LOv3 will continue to operate for LEED 2009 projects, just as the earlier LEED Online v2 continues to support LEED v2 projects. But if you're tempted to call the new LEED Online "LOv4," don't, says Chrissy Macken, manager of LEED technical development for USGBC. According to Macken, the new platform is simply "LEED Online." (And for those keeping track of all the LEED Onlines, there is also a separate LEED Online for campuses platform that is more like the new platform than the old, but which is separate from both.)

LEED 2009 projects will be able to upgrade to LEED v4, according to Macken, but because the platforms are so different, projects in LOv3 will not be able to port their data over to LEED Online. 

Macken said that there is no increase in fees for registration or certification for either platform, and that projects that move quickly to upgrade to LEED v4 would not face a new registration fee. (She advised projects to contact USGBC directly to start this process.)

Reduction in number of forms

Leading up to the launch of LEED v4 at Greenbuild in November 2013, rumor spread that the number of LEED Online forms had been reduced by 80% compared with LEED 2009. Macken clarified for LEEDuser that while that might be true, it's more about the LEED Online universe of forms rather than the number of forms that an individual project might face. Because LEED 2009 was launched incrementally, with systems like Healthcare, Retail, and ND being added after the initial 2009 launch, Macken explained, a lot of duplicative forms entered the LEED Online system—thousands of them. Because LEED v4 has been developed more cohesively, Macken says there are more like 130 forms overall.

Even though the story here is more about streamlining the overall system, "We expect that people will spend less time on documentation for a wide range of credits," says Macken, pointing to light pollution reduction, indoor water use reduction, and energy efficiency as forms that have become more focused to good reviews from LEED v4 beta users. Having fewer forms will benefit LEED users juggling multiple rating systems, and reviewers should also be responsible for a more manageable set of documents. Macken also notes that fewer forms means less maintenance for the LEED technical staff.

Your comments 

What do you hope to see in the new LEED Online? Do you think it will deliver on that, or are you going to wait and see? Please post your comments below, and also attend the new LEEDuser webcast, What Can We Learn from LEED's Critics?, to explore problems and fixes with the LEED certification process in more detail.

The vinyl industry has been vocally opposed to the new LEED v4 MR credits, even going so far as to characterize MRc4 Option 2 as a ban on PVC. The Vinyl Insitute, which represents PVC polymer makers, warned BuildingGreen (publishers of LEEDuser) in an email that LEED v4 “can actually lead architects and designers to make bad decisions in order to secure credits so they can market their buildings.”

Does LEED v4 ban PVC? Let's look at the details of the new rating system. (And check out our new webcast, which explores this and related issues in detail.)

LEED-NC v4 does not ban any building materials

It’s important to note that LEED-NC v4 does not actually ban any building materials. MRc4 is optional, and only 25% of permanently installed products have to meet the criteria in order to achieve Option 2—but we still wondered if a product containing PVC could still contribute to MRc4. The answer is decidedly “yes.”

PVC is on the banned list in Cradle to Cradle (C2C), but any product with an HPD or a manufacturer inventory can contribute to Option 1: as long as the ingredients are disclosed, it doesn’t matter what they are. Contributing to Option 2 would certainly be more challenging, particularly for products that include certain phthalates (plasticizers that make PVC flexible), but it’s still quite doable.

Some complications for PVC, but no dealbreakers

A full GreenScreen assessment, which would value a PVC product at 150% of its cost under the MRc4 requirements, would disqualify PVC because its life cycle begins and ends with Benchmark 1 hazards,  Clean Production Action’s Lauren Heine told us. However, the List Translator, which would value a product at 100% of cost, doesn’t take the whole life cycle into account, so materials that don’t have toxic components in their use phase won’t have a problem passing through this screening process. Although PVC often contains additives like phthalates and even heavy metals like lead that are likely to be on red lists, “the PVC molecule itself is pretty benign” and doesn’t appear in the List Translator, Heine said.

PVC also doesn’t show up on either of the relevant REACH lists, so products that meet those criteria can also count for Option 2, even in U.S. projects.

The bottom line? There are multiple pathways for PVC-containing products to contribute to maximum points in this credit.

It's optional, anyway

That's right—the key word here is "credit." MRc4 is optional, and many projects might scoff at the 1–2 points it offers as reward for a heap of documentation. Plenty of projects just won't bother.

For those projects that do pursue MRc4, credit achievement is based on meeting the credit criteria for just a portion of products on the job (20 products for Option 1, or 25% of total product cost for Option 2), so it's always possible to have non-compliant products on the project that don't contribute to meeting those thresholds.

The Vinyl Institute makes its case

When I pressed him on how MRc4 could act as a ban on PVC, Dick Doyle, president of the Vinyl Institute, told me that “people are going to go for the easiest thing” and that “they will cut to the chase with C2C.” (I'm not sure that the inventors of C2C—William McDonough and Michael Braungart—whose Platinum certification criteria have never been approached, would agree.) Doyle noted the influence that LEED has with government agencies and worried that health advocates “are going to be very active in helping the community know that you have many better options than PVC.”

Asked for an example of how LEED v4 could lead an architect to make a bad choice for a building, Doyle told me that designers could be forced to look for alternatives to PVC roofing, which is generally recognized as durable. However, non-PVC options such as TPO, EPDM, and standing-seam metal are also very durable, as we have reviewed in EBN. (Not to say that those materials provide a free ride in terms of avoiding toxic chemicals, as discussed in EBN.)

What do you think?

Did we miss something here? Do see see LEED v4 as being unfair on PVC or any other material? (Venturi-type flow-through vacuum generators or aspirators—this is not about you!)

Note: BuildingGreen's managing editor Paula Melton contributed to this post. For more reporting by Paula, see Chemical Industry Attacks LEED: We Check the Facts.