The American High-Performance Buildings Coalition (AHPBC) is touting the passage of language in a federal appropriations bill that it believes will exclude the LEED Rating System from federal government use. AHPBC was formed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and other trade organizations to support green building standards developed through the ANSI or ISO consensus process (see The New Anti-LEED?).

The 2014 U.S. House Appropriations bill, recently completed in committee, includes language that would limit spending on federal building projects to those adhering to “voluntary consensus standards, as that term is defined in Office of Management and Budget [OMB] Circular A-119.”

No problem, says USGBC

“If this is the definition of consensus that the American Chemistry Council is willing to support, then we can take this language to the Senate for the Shaheen-Portman bill,” says Lane Burt, director of policy strategy at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).

Shaheen-Portman is a popular energy bill that has been attracting controversial amendments, including one amendment forthcoming from Senator Mary Landrieu (D–Louisiana) that would restrict use of LEED based on its purported lack of consensus in development. “The language is not language that we oppose. We have been determined to be in compliance” with OMB Circular A-119, he told LEEDuser. “I’m a little surprised.” (For background, see Chemical Industry Attacks LEED: We Check the Facts.)

The OMB circular defines consensus standard as “general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity” that “includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments.

Not so fast, says AHPBC

“USGBC’s current process is not a full consensus process,” counters AHPBC’s Scott Openshaw. “It’s partial, or incomplete. It does not follow internationally recognized procedures for consensus standard development.”

Stating that “ANSI would be a good start,” Openshaw accused USGBC of not giving all comments fair consideration. “Numerous stakeholders took the time to provide thoughtful, supported technical comments, and the record fails to demonstrate they were given suitable technical consideration by informed experts,” he told us. “Consensus development demands not just that stakeholder comments be received, or even responded to. There must be an effort to resolve the comment, and this effort must be made by a properly balanced and technically expert group of the stakeholders themselves. USGBC does not do this.”

USGBC responds

“I would just point to the redline drafts and all the changes that have happened in those credits,” says Burt, referring to the various drafts of LEED version 4 and that appeared through its public comment periods, which culminated recently in a member vote to approve the new LEED v4 rating system. “We have been the beneficiaries of a lot of stakeholder engagement on those credits, and the credits are far better for it. The product we arrived at is something that a lot of people can get behind.”

As a specific example relevant to the chemical industry, Burt pointed to the shift from a chemical “red list” in the original drafts of LEED v4 to a “green list” in the final draft that was approved. “It’s been very much an iterative process, and that’s why we feel very confident in the product as it’s come to be,” he added.

Despite these objections, it’s unclear what the ramifications of the consensus language may be if it is retained when the bill comes to the House floor later this summer, or how it would mesh with Senate legislation. What is increasingly clear, however, is that AHPBC is throwing its weight against LEED, and with the competing Green Globes rating system recently getting more serious about its ANSI accreditation, it would appear to be positioned to receive the support of AHPBC and its allies: the ACC and its members.

What do you think of the machinations? What is the role of consensus in green rating systems, and who should define that?

LEED version 4 has been approved by a vote of U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) members, with 86% of the voting body voting in the affirmative during a June 2013 ballot period. Approval of LEED v4 as the next version of the LEED Rating System clears the way for its launch during the Greenbuild conference in November.

The landmark vote, in which more than 1,200 USGBC member companies cast ballots, hadn’t appeared to be a sure thing, with passionate arguments on both sides (as illustrated in a mock debate conducted here at LEEDuser). Representing one of the 10% “no” votes (4% abstained), Russell Perry, office director for SmithGroupJJR, told LEEDuser, “Those who of us who have voted ‘no’ and those who have voted ‘yes’ both voted in an effort to preserve LEED.”

He explained that he wanted to see LEED v4 go back to the drawing board because changes in LEED v4 are “in some cases too abrupt, the path to project success is significantly less certain, and the effort to comply will be measurably increased.” After 13 years of incredible success for LEED, Perry fears “a LEED drop-off that could be a crash.”

Passes by a large margin

However, the ballot crossed each required hurdle with ease:

• 59.4% of the consensus body voted, meeting quorum.
• In the Producer category, which includes contactors and builders and representing 25% of membership, 89% voted “yes.”
• In the User category of various stripes of design firms that make up 48% of members—90% voted affirmative.
• In the General Interest category, which includes utilities, manufacturers, organizations, and other groups comprising 26% of members, 77% voted to approve.
• Two-thirds overall approval was required, and it came in at 86%.

“We are ecstatic about this,” Chrissy Macken, assistant project manager for LEED v4 at USGBC, told LEEDuser. “This is really phenomenal; it’s a great sentiment from our membership that we are moving in the right direction.”

Asked for his reaction, Brendan Owens, vice president for LEED technical development at USGBC, said, ”That’s the history of this organization. The members have always been progressive and willing to move forward.” He acknowledged the challenges of the six public comment periods leading up to the ballot as well as unresolved concerns about the new system, but said, “People are ready to get on with it.”

USGBC reviewing comments submitted

Voters had the opportunity to provide comments along with their votes, and Macken said that about 15% had done so. Even after the thousands of public comments through the course of the LEED v4 development process, the ballot comments were particularly valuable, said Owens. “For someone to say, ‘I wanted to vote yes, but these are the reasons I’m voting no,’ is very informative,” he said. Owens noted that the UGSBC staff and LEED Steering Committee were carefully reviewing the comments. “I think we’ll find there’s quite a few we’ll be able to address.”

Joel Ann Todd, an independent consultant and the chair of the LEED Steering Committee, said that the comments, which came on both yes and no votes, “cut out the chaff and got down to the most important factors.” According to Todd, comments were focused on feasibility: “Can we do this, how much is it going to cost us, is it going to turn people away from LEED, is it raising the bar too much?” She added, “We are going to work really hard with stakeholders over next few months and get it right.”

LEED 2009 and LEED v4 to coexist

The Greenbuild launch of LEED v4 will be a “holistic, integrated launch” says Owens, with USGBC planning to have LEED Online forms, updated LEED credentialing exams, reference guides, and educational offerings ready. The postponement of LEED v4, which had originally been developed as LEED 2012, is giving USGBC time to launch a more polished product, said Owens.

In response to concerns about the changes in LEED v4 being too abrupt, USGBC announced last year that it would ease into LEED v4, with project teams allowed to register for either LEED v4 or LEED 2009 until June 1, 2015, after which only LEED v4 will remain open. (Projects registered under LEED 2009 will be allowed to complete the certification process under that system as long as they do so before it “sunsets,” which could happen as late as 2021, according to precedents.) But if announcements like USGBC’s offer of free certification for the first Platinum LEED v4 projects are any indication, it will try to attract projects to the new system with financial incentives, ease of use, and prestige.

MR section remains controversial

Despite the strong ballot results, all is not clear sailing for LEED. Many of those ballot comments focused on the Materials and Resources (MR) section of LEED v4, which even supporters of LEED regard as a tangled web of options, some of which aren’t well defined, and whose credits for disclosure and optimization of product ingredients have made LEED a focus of attack by the chemical industry, allying it with timber interests against LEED.

On the usability issue, USGBC points to the 100 LEED projects that are beta-testing LEED v4 as evidence that it can be done. Commissioning seemed like a foreign concept 10 years ago, but LEED pioneers will again help make new LEED concepts more routine. LEEDuser heard support for that idea from Z Smith, director of sustainability and building performance at Eskew+Dumez+Ripple. He told LEEDuser, “As Mark Twain said of the music of Wagner, ‘It’s not as bad as it sounds.’” (Smith followed up to clarify that Twain was quoting journalist Edgar Wilson Nye in his autobiography.) The integrated nature of the new MR section makes it easier to document, Smith told LEEDuser.

The chemical industry may be a tougher sell. The Vinyl Institute, which represents North American manufacturers of PVC resin, said in an email to LEEDuser, “LEED v4’s material resource section will fail to live up to its goal and can actually lead architects and designers to make bad decisions in order to secure credits so they can market their buildings.” Asked to elaborate, Allen Blakey, vice president of industry and government affairs, told LEEDuser that “The disclosure and optimization credit is a poor attempt to rush the future” and should be scrapped.

Onward to implementation

“We’ve worked on this for years and years now,” said Todd. “It’s great to see that we’ve finally come to the time when we can take the next steps, which will focus on the implementation side.”

What’s your reaction to the results of the LEED v4 vote? Why did you support it, or not? Are you doing a beta project or planning to register a LEED v4 project after Greenbuild? Please share your thoughts below.

As an educational opportunity for our entire staff and a way to sort out our thoughts on how BuildingGreen (publisher of LEEDuser) should vote on LEED v4, Tristan Roberts and I staged an impromptu debate during our weekly staff meeting. We flipped a coin to decide which of us would argue pro or con, and went at it with opening statements, rebuttals, and questions from the floor.

In the end most of the staff, including both Tristan and I, felt BuildingGreen should vote in favor of approving the draft, but it wasn’t a slam dunk. I led off with the arguments in favor of approving the draft.

Arguments in Favor of “Yes” on LEED v4

With powerful forces in politics and industry lining up against LEED, the standard needs our support. A vote against the new version would very likely embolden the American Chemistry Council and its allies who are lobbying congress and many state legislatures to ban LEED from public sector projects.

The new standard raises the threshold of achievement in many important ways, which are critical to retaining LEED’s standing as a leadership standard. These include reinforcing the connections between good intentions and actual performance, with the new Integrative Process credit and building envelope commissioning option, and tougher requirements for energy and water efficiency, for example. Given the “grade inflation” we’ve seen, in which more and more projects are now achieving the once-exclusive LEED Platinum rating, it’s high time to reset that bar—before LEED becomes “EED.”

Lots of work has gone into improving the rating system requirements, and on the whole they are much better in terms of aligning actions with desired outcomes.

The overall alignment of requirements across the rating systems is greatly improved, allowing for the addition of new project-type specific compliance paths while keeping the overall program manageable.

In addition to the rating systems themselves, there are many other aspects of the LEED program that strongly affect the user experience. USGBC has been doing a lot of work on LEED's “Balance of System” components. If the rating systems themselves are like PV panels, then LEED online, the Reference Guides, and the credit forms, are the inverters, mounting racks, and safety switches—the “balance of system” in PV parlance—that are needed to make the system work.

The Reference Guides and credit forms have been through multiple iterations already in the v4 beta process, for example. Problematic documentation requirements that didn’t add a lot of value, like requiring project owners to log into LEED Online to sign off on specific measures, have been removed. The new online Credit Library is also a powerful new resource that teams will find helpful. This level of preparation for a version launch is unprecedented in past LEED roll-outs—and bodes well for the success of the new system.

Arguments for “No” on LEED v4

Then Tristan responded with arguments against:

A few new credits in the Materials & Resources (MR) category contain requirements that are untested and, in some cases, not even clearly defined. USGBC has promised to be transparent in defining these requirements, and putting substantive issues out to ballot as needed, but it after six public comment periods it would be nice if they had the rating system better defined.

The key MR requirements are now structured around four new credits:

1. Building life-cycle impact reduction: This credit includes the so-called “whole-building LCA” approach, that seeks to replicate for structural engineering what energy modeling does for mechanical system engineers. It’s a great goal, but faces some serious hurdles, as Paula Melton describes in her recent article.
2. Building product disclosure and optimization – environmental product declarations: The environmental product declarations (EPDs) part of this credit is already working—many industry are now working hard to develop product category rules so that companies can produce EPDs. The concrete industry is setting a great example. But the “multi-attribute optimization” path seems to anticipate the availability of some certification programs that are not yet defined or adopted, so it’s hard to say exactly how it will work.
3. Building product disclosure and optimization – sourcing of raw materials: A range of reporting mechanisms are cited for documenting responsible extraction practices, but none of them were created for the purpose to which they’re being used here. This credit will clearly require some additional clarification over time.
4. Building product disclosure and optimization – material ingredients: This is the ingredient transparency credit that seems to have the American Chemistry Council so concerned. While it’s pushing in a good direction, it has too many options, some of which are poorly defined.

Moving beyond these challenging MR credits, many others now include language with much more detail and apparent complexity than before, which makes LEED feel less accessible.

Some of the new requirements, especially those in prerequisites, raise the bar on entry-level projects in ways that could discourage adoption. For example, there are now three prerequisites in the Water Efficient category of the Building Design and Construction rating systems (up from one in LEED 2009), and the Minimum Energy Performance prerequisite is much more stringent. Tristan made the argument that the choice to focus on a minimum Energy Star score for LEED-EBOM projects rather than allowing a percentage improvement option is a mistake that will exclude too much of the existing building stock—the buildings we need to involve now in reducing carbon emissions.

Overall documentation requirements appear to be more onerous than before, which introduces yet another barrier to LEED adoption—although this could just be a factor of their novelty, and once the tools are in place and the requirements become more familiar, the documentation work may not be any greater.

We noted during the debate that many of these concerns may be addressed by the time registration for LEED 2009 closes, as that date was extended last year until the middle of 2015.

How the Ballot works

Only staff at USGBC member organizations who opted in to the LEED version 4 “consensus body” can vote. The consensus body can’t be dominated by any one interest group, as defined by the Board of Directors. Each member organization gets one vote, which is divided proportionally if multiple people at the organization vote.

A simple majority (50% +1) is required in each of the voting body categories for the ballot to pass.

According to the official rules in Appendix II of the LEED Foundations Documents: A ballot is approved by the consensus body if:

       a. A majority (more than 50%) of the members of the consensus body casts a vote, including abstentions; and

       b. A minimum of two-thirds of votes cast are affirmative votes; and

       c. A majority of votes cast by members of the consensus body in each interest category (producer, user, general interest) are affirmative votes.

If you’re in the consensus body, you have until June 30 to cast your vote.

What other considerations did we miss in our debate? How are you approaching this decision?

With all the furor over the U.S. Green Building Council’s complete overhaul of LEED v4 for building design and construction (BD&C) rating systems, no one seems to have been paying a lot of attention to how the next version of LEED (if approved under the current member ballot) is set to affect LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED–ND).

Yet three-year-aged SRI values have been added, and the method for calculating BMPs has been tweaked. Where’s the outrage?!

Mostly technical

In truth, LEED–ND is still pretty new, with the first community achieving certification under the LEED 2009 rating system just this March (see our story about the Presidio neighborhood). Most alterations to LEED–ND v4 have been relatively minor technical updates involving name changes.

Also, new reference standards have been used to align LEED–ND with current industry norms as well as with the BD&C rating systems.

Not a cancer diagnosis

LEED–ND used to be divided up into stages: Stage 1 was conditional approval of the neighborhood plan; Stage 2 involved pre-certification of a plan after initial review; Stage 3 was actual certification of the neighborhood after completion.

LEED v4 moves away from this cancer-diagnosis-like naming scheme, making Stage 1 into its own separate mini-rating system called LEED for Neighborhood Development Plan (LEED–NDP). Stage 2 is now simply LEED–ND, with Stage 3 still signifying formal LEED–ND certification (sources suggest this stage will now be called “Built Neighborhoods”).

Credit name changes

Various credits are seeing name changes that better reflect their intent or echo credit names in the BD&C rating systems. These include:

• Access to Quality Transit (formerly Preferred Locations)
• Bicycle Facilities (formerly Bicycle Network and Storage)
• Indoor Water Use Reduction (formerly Minimum Building Water Efficiency)
• Rainwater Management (formerly Stormwater Management—see our guide to LEED v4 for why that’s a bigger deal than it seems to be)

Alignment with BD&C

Finally, several credits now more closely reflect the requirements and underlying standards in LEED for New Construction and other BD&C rating systems. Examples:

• Brownfield Remediation (formerly Brownfields Redevelopment) includes a broader definition of a brownfield in need of remediation.
• Bicycle Facilities (formerly Bicycle Network and Storage) is now marked as n LT (Location & Transportation) credit, even though ND doesn’t have an LT credit section, and the number of required storage facilities is now based on occupancy.
• Minimum Building Energy Performance (formerly Minimum Building Energy Efficiency) has been updated along with the BD&C prerequisite of the same name.

What’s next?

The Presidio neighborhood is the only post-pilot project with Stage 3 certification, but many communities are in the process, so we’ll probably start seeing more of these soon.

Meanwhile, here’s a partial list of certified projects, and Kaid Benfield has a neat map of ND projects in Washington, D.C.

If you’re working on an ND project, let us know how it’s going and what you think of the changes (or lack thereof) introduced with v4.

LEEDuser's LEED-ND webcast

LEEDuser is also offering a members-ony webcast with LEED Faculty member Eliot Allen, Welcome to the Green Neighborhood: Getting Started with LEED-ND. It's a great way to get oriented to the key opportunities—and challenges—that can come along with an ND project. Check it out!

One of the main reasons USGBC unexpectedly opened a sixth public comment period on LEED version 4 is to gather market feedback on a new option for recognition of sustainability efforts not at the product level, where LEED project teams usually work, but up the supply chain.

“Product Manufacturer Supply Chain Optimization” is a new Option 3 in LEED v4’s Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Material Ingredients credit. (The credit is slated to be labeled MRc4 and worth two points.)

Option 3: Product Manufacturer Supply Chain Optimization

As currently drafted, the option would reward projects for using building products sourced from manufacturers who procure raw materials from suppliers following health, safety, and environmental standards, with third-party verification.

Like the other options within this credit, the requirements focus on chemical ingredients. But unlike the other credit options, which rely on standards like Cradle to Cradle and formats like the Health Product Declaration to minimize and communicate about ingredient hazards, there are no specific standards named in the current draft. Rather, it calls for verification of general practices along the manufacturer supply chain, such as:

• Communication on health, safety, and environmental characteristics of chemical ingredients.
• Managing the health, safety, and environmental hazard and risk of chemical ingredients.
• Optimizing health, safety, and environmental impacts when designing and improving chemical ingredients.

Transcending the building products industry

In explaining the intent behind Option 3, Brendan Owens, vice president of LEED technical development, told LEEDuser, “I hope it accomplishes a much more systemic engagement with the raw materials and components that end up being the things that we make our buildings out of.” Aside from the new Option 3, Owens explained, “All the credits are targeting the end of the supply chain”—that is, the finished-product end of it—by rewarding projects for using products with certain green labels.

Green specifications have encouraged building product manufacturers to work with their supply chains to provide the necessary products and components to meet LEED requirements. But according to Owens, such credits haven’t directly engaged companies whose businesses are largely or completely about supplying materials to product manufacturers.

By engaging those suppliers more directly, Owens hopes that the new option could increase “the availability of the types of materials that we are encouraging end-use manufacturers to use.” Owens also thinks the credit “has the potential to transcend the building products industry” by introducing LEED’s values and processes into companies that supply multiple industries, such as the automotive or textile industries, to name a couple.

A working group to define specific requirements

Owens acknowledged to LEEDuser that the credit requirements are quite general but that USGBC is now convening a working group to figure out how they would translate to specific industry practices.

Pressed by LEEDuser on the wisdom of introducing a new and poorly defined option into a fraught credit category so late in the LEED v4 development process, especially when other vehicles are open such as the Pilot Credit Library or future introduction as an alternate compliance path, Owens emphasized the statement that USGBC was hoping to make in including Option 3 in the rating system.

“It was an opportunity to say that this is something that we value,” he said. USGBC is “taking advantage of all the different opportunities that exist to leverage LEED as broadly as we can as a transformation mechanism,” he told LEEDuser. According to Owens, while alternate compliance paths and standards are regularly added to LEED without controversy, or member balloting, a member ballot could be used to seek USGBC member approval for specific Option 3 requirements.

LEEDuser also asked Owens if the option is an olive branch to the chemical industry, which has been stirring up trouble for USGBC and LEED. “It’s not very cynical to think that it would be,” Owens said, but “I don’t think it is. We didn’t go down this path trying to find a solution that would mollify the chemical industry, but a good idea came up, and it’s a win for everybody, potentially.”

Not everyone is so enthusiastic about Option 3, however—or the whole makeup of the MR category, for that matter.

“I do appreciate that they’re trying to go up the supply chain,” Eden Brukman, principal with Concenter Solutions, told LEEDuser, but “It adds yet another level of complexity to a credit that’s already fairly complex.” Brukman points out that just within MRc4, there are three options with ten total pathways to earning the credit.

“At the end of reading it, the intent is lost,” she said. Brukman supports a vast simplification of the credit with a focus on Health Product Declarations, GreenScreen, and Cradle to Cradle while putting Option 3 in the Pilot Credit Library for testing and development. Tom Lent, policy director at the Healthy Building Network, makes similar points in a comment on LEEDuser’s LEED v4 forum.

Sizing up the papal candidates

Owens says that it will be up to the working group to define where the rubber meets the road in terms of standards and processes defining MRc4 Option 3. However, LEEDuser has heard the following programs mentioned as being under consideration.

• The Responsible Care program is a condition of membership in the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The program focuses on environmental, health, and safety programs as well as energy efficiency. This year, on the 25th anniversary of Responsible Care in the U.S., ACC announced plans to “enhance” and strengthen the program. The idea of an ACC program becoming a part of LEED has a fox-in-the-henhouse quality to some onlookers. Owens told LEEDuser that Responsible Care has come up in some conversations, and while “it could on its face do some of what we’re after, whether it is sufficient is too soon to tell.”
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012) covers at least some aspects of Option 3, such as “comprehensive hazard communication programs.” As a basic law of the land, and not a leadership standard, OSHA shouldn’t be seen as a serious contender here, but it could help define the parameters that a leadership program is expected to exceed.
• NSF/GCI/ANSI 355: Greener Chemicals and Processes Information Standard is, to quote NSF, “the only standard available with which to document information on sustainability-related attributes of chemical products and processes, thus allowing manufacturers and formulators to easily compare the hazards and process impacts of chemical products.” NSF, which has other credible sustainability-related standards, could be seen as a more credible benchmarking group for Option 3, but NSF-355 hasn’t been evaluated yet for this credit.
• Various ISO standards.

What do you think of the new Option 3, the MR category in general, and the LEED v4 process? How do you think the industry might adapt to these new requirements? Please post your comments below.

Update: It's March 1st, and the 6th public comment period is open. USGBC has posted information on how to get involved at usgbc.org/leedv4. As usual, LEEDuser is hosting an open forum where you can not only post public comments but also share your thoughts, reactions, and questions on the latest draft of LEED v4. The biggest change from the 5th public comment draft is a new Option 3 of the Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Material Ingredients credit. This option recognizes manufacturer programs that are third party verified and provide relevant information on environmental and health impacts to decision-makers throughout the manufacturing process. What do you think of this and other changes in this draft? Please comment below.

USGBC has announced a 6th public comment period for LEED version 4, the newest version of the LEED rating systems, but it says that there will be no delay in the member balloting and launch of the system, if approved by members.

The new comment period will run from March 1–31, according to an announcement on the USGBC website. Selina Holmes, LEED marketing and communications manager at USGBC, told LEEDuser that the new comment period, which was not previously scheduled, is intended to focus specifically on refinements to credit calculations and documentation. Most basic credit requirements will not be up for review, but USGBC wants to make sure that the LEED v4 draft that goes to member ballot June 1st reflects the most straightforward requirements.

Complicated credit requirements and documentation have been a theme of comments from the LEED community through the development of LEED v4, and during the 5th public comment period in Fall 2012, that complaint was raised by some commenters. LEED's consensus-based, member-driven process requires substantive changes in rating system development to go through public comment. That means that without a 6th public comment, USGBC would have had to put the 5th public comment draft out to ballot with only minor tweaks. The organization apparently decided, based on comments received, that enough changes were called for to make a 6th public comment period worthwhile.

Holmes told LEEDuser that not all credits would be open for comment, noting that the new Materials & Resources credits, which have been particularly contentious, would be part of the focus of this comment period.

The member ballot remains scheduled for June 1-30, and  Holmes says a launch of LEED v4 is targeted for Greenbuild 2013.

LEED v4 got most of the attention at the November 2012 Greenbuild conference, but another LEED concept was unveiled that could, over time, have as much or more impact on how we perceive and interact with the LEED Rating System. While all aspects of the concept are in development, including the name, USGBC’s senior vice president for LEED, Scot Horst, unveiled something he’s calling the “LEED dynamic plaque,” and that he’s pitching as the future of LEED performance tracking and recertification.

Horst underlines that the plaque concept is under development—it’s not even ready for a pilot, although he hopes that USGBC’s LEED Platinum headquarters will be first in line—and USGBC has not formally announced the project, he laid out some features at Greenbuild, and in interviews with LEEDuser (including a live expo floor event hosted by GreenSource) that make it clear what we can expect.

Horst emphasizes that the focus of the plaque is monitoring how well LEED buildings perform over time—like a dashboard—and giving owners, occupants, and observers another tool to engage with that, and a reason to pay attention. While this isn’t USGBC’s first attempt at engaging existing buildings with their ongoing performance—LEED for Existing Buildings was launched in 2004, of course, and reporting of ongoing energy and water data has been required since 2009—it is the most ambitious concept to date in the way it aims to leverage both the public appetite for mobile apps and social media status updates, along trends in public policy toward transparency and disclosure of building performance.

“This is the validation program,” Horst told LEEDuser. “It says whether what you’re doing is working—it validates whether you are a green building and keeps you on track.”

Any building that is already LEED-certified would be encouraged to enroll. While newly constructed or renovated buildings have long been encouraged to enroll in LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (LEED-EBOM), they haven’t done so in droves, perhaps not seeing enough benefit in exchange for the financial costs and time investment. Similarly, LEED-EBOM projects are required to recertify within five years, and while USGBC just released its most complete recertification guidance to date, recertification requires more fees and forms—in exchange for a new plaque on the wall. USGBC is looking for a more dynamic model.

According to Horst, the dashboard would focus on monitoring energy use, water use, waste production, transportation use, and occupant satisfaction—metrics that are at the core of a building’s environmental impact, and that can change frequently—for better or for worse. More static environmental features, like the existence of wildlife habitat, or of light pollution reduction techniques, would be assumed as part of a baseline.

Because LEED rating systems cover so many static features that are difficult to monitor in a dashboard setting, Horst says that projects would use regular LEED rating systems like LEED-NC and LEED-EBOM to enter the LEED system, and then use the performance dashboard to stay updated.

The dashboard could display in a lobby (with an online version likely available as well). To populate the dashboard with accurate, meaningful data, USGBC would collect information via something being dubbed the “LEED box.” Whether it turns out to be a literal or metaphorical, the box would gather real-time feeds from energy and water meters, and use apps or social media tools to voluntarily survey occupants on things like commuting patterns. USGBC would then validate this data and use it to update the plaque. Similarly to how USGBC’s Building Performance Partnership (BPP) has worked, it’s likely that the dashboard would have alerts for building operators when performance data seems headed in the wrong direction.

Wondering how all this will look and feel? This video from Greenbuild shows the dashboard in action—skip to 40:44 if you’re pressed for time. USGBC has had help from IDEO, the design firm, in developing the concept, and their thoughtful attention to the interface and graphic presentation shows.

While Horst hopes that the dynamic plaque will bring more validation of LEED buildings that are doing things right, and attention that might help the laggards, he emphasized to LEEDuser that “We’ll never take plaques away—we’ll only update plaques.” In other words, any LEED hardware you earn through certification won’t be affected by the dashboard data. However, Horst does hope that the market will perceive a greater value to the dashboards, and that buildings with static, dated plaques will want to join the program.

While the possibilities of this new plaque are exciting, LEEDuser will watch its development to see how some intriguing questions are dealt with, like the following. Please post your own thoughts and question below.

• What rules or logic would the dashboard program follow to translate live data streams into LEED point totals on the dynamic plaque? While the concept is straightforward, in reality there are many unique situations and obscure rules that complicate this process during LEED certification. How will this process be both streamlined enough to function in the dashboard context, but also be accurate, and fair for different building types?
• The dashboard is meant to treat certain environmental features as static, while others will require updated data. But in reality, there are no static environmental features—reflective roofing gets dirty, and gets replaced, track-off mats wear out, and habitat-providing plants get mowed. Will the dashboard be able to keep up with these measures?
• Will the dashboard, and the ongoing engagement with LEED and USGBC that it represents, do anything to encourage increased performance, and consideration of new environmental features or programs? For example, would a project certified under LEED-NC, which has no green cleaning component, be encouraged to adopt the kind of green cleaning measures required in LEED-EBOM?
• As LEED becomes more stringent over time through rating system development, will buildings in the dashboard program have to improve performance to maintain scores and certification levels?
• It appears that the logic and scoring underlying the dashboard could be seen as representing a “meta” LEED rating system. If so, what is the development process for this system? Will USGBC publish the rules and open them up for comment?

Again, please comment with your thoughts and questions below.

Update, 12/20/12: After reading this post, Scot Horst told me that he's calling it the "LEED dynamic plaque," rather than the "dynamic dashboard"—as I originally quoted him. I have updated the post.

I took a call from Tom Frank, a reporter at USA Today last week, and spent over an hour on the phone with him explaining the proposed LEED v4 rating system and what it’s trying to achieve. I wish I had saved my breath, because the story that came out today used almost nothing from our conversation, and instead devotes itself to attacking LEED based not on the future, but on ancient (2002–2008) history.

The story casts LEED as a tool developers use to garner tax breaks and other advantages for very little environmental or social benefit. It’s true that some projects have exploited loopholes in LEED requirements and achieved credits for measures that they either had to do anyway, or did for no good reason except to earn the point. Each new version of LEED has gotten a little more sophisticated in removing those loopholes, so that’s happening less than it used to, but the long lag-time between registering a project and earning certification means that it takes a while for those improvements to filter through.

The USA Today story features the Palazzo Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, which was certified in 2008 based on a version of the LEED rating system that was released in 2002. Yes, it earned points for some silly things, and won huge tax credits (as we wrote in “Navigating Incentives and Regulations for Green Building” the Nevada law providing those credits was poorly conceived and quickly rescinded). But further, USA Today acknowledges that the team behind the Palazzo also did some pretty important things, such as solar-heating the swimming pools and using occupancy sensors to control ventilation to hotel rooms.

What the article never does is look at the whole picture: either for individual projects or the industry as a whole. Is it a problem that projects earn some low-benefit points if LEED also causes them to take more meaningful measures?

Government Mandates and Incentives

Much of the story’s attack on LEED is based on how it is used by governments at various levels to mandate or provide incentives for green building. It’s no secret that LEED is not a great tool for that purpose, which is why USGBC, ASHRAE, and AIA have worked so hard on Standard 189 and the International Green Construction Code (IgCC). Now that those resources are available LEED can focus on what it was created to do, which is to provide a framework for green building and spur voluntary, market-based incentives to go beyond code.

Does the Cost of Points Matter?

The author also gets sucked into the red herring of cost, accusing LEED of giving developers credit for doing things that have low or no cost.

The goal of LEED, as far as I’m concerned, is not to get owners to spend a ton of money investing in green technology, but to encourage them to do stuff that provides real environmental and social benefit, regardless of what that stuff costs. If a green measure doesn’t cost much, but most building projects aren’t using it, then LEED has a useful role to play in educating projects about that measure. We highlight lower-cost credit like IEQc4.2 on LEEDuser, and the story quotes LEEDuser’s suggestions as if low-hanging fruit were a sin.

(This is also a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t: LEED v4 has been protested by some industry groups based in part on credits that could push products to implement measures that would cost building projects more and potentially—hopefully, in fact—push product manufacturers out of their comfortable business-as-usual zones.)

Existing Buildings Don’t Exist?

The article’s biggest flaw, however, is the way it ignores LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (EBOM) entirely. I agree that there are problems with awarding certification based on the promise of green performance—it would have been nice if USGBC had taken the suggestion that I (and others) made back in 2008 to change the certification for Building Design + Construction projects to something like “Built for LEED.” But the way the article attacks LEED on that performance gap without even mentioning the EBOM rating system that is based entirely on performance is selective use of data more typical of a political campaign than good journalism.  (Tom Frank, the author of the USA Today article, defended this choice in an email to me, pointing out that his focus was on government programs that rely mostly on LEED for New Construction.)

Fortunately, USGBC also recognized the performance gap with its Design + Construction rating systems (such as LEED-NC), and is taking increasingly ambitious steps to close that gap, with everything from improved guidelines for energy modeling to mandatory reporting requirements, and increasing incentives for teams to recertify regularly based on their actual performance.

Disconnected Messages

Buried deep in the article are some quotes strongly supportive of LEED, which seem out of place as the article makes no effort to explain why the smart people behind those quotes believe what they say if LEED is the sham the article says it is.

Given the amount of work that apparently went into this story, and the valid concerns it raises, it’s too bad that it ended up so flawed, missing a chance to raise the quality of discourse on more important and relevant questions about LEED and green building generally.

Did you see the USA Today article? What did you think? Post your comments below.

The fifth draft of LEED v4 (formerly LEED 2012) is now out for public comment, and while there have been a lot of changes through the evolution of the next version of LEED, many of the key concepts and programs that it references appear to be taking hold. We asked our readers to test their knowledge of LEED v4 in this quiz (if you haven't taken it yet, go there first!), and now we reveal our diabolical answers below.

How did you do? What do you think about how LEED v4 is evolving? Please comment below, and in this official LEED v4 fifth public comment forum.

Need to bone up on LEED v4?

If you're already a LEEDuser member, look for the download link in the sidebar to the right.

Not yet a LEEDuser member? You can get the LEED v4 report for free with a 30-day trial subscription to LEEDuser.

LEED v4 quiz answer key

1) An environmental product declaration (EPD) is a shortened version of a:

      a.    life-cycle inventory (LCI)

      b.    product category rule (PCR)

      c.    life-cycle analysis (LCA)

      d.    corporate sustainability report (CSR)

An EPD is like the Cliffs Notes version of an LCA, which is a tome of a report detailing various environmental impacts. (An LCI is related, but it’s done before an LCA to help identify which impacts ought to be measured in the first place.)

It’s easy to get tangled up in these acronyms, so check out this downloadable transparency infographic we developed to help you keep them straight.

 

2) LEED v4 includes a new credit for:

      a.    avoiding certain dangerous chemicals

      b.    using products whose ingredients have been reported by manufacturers, even if they contain dangerous chemicals

      c.    both of these

      d.    neither of these

Much to the confusion and consternation of some critics, LEED points are available under v4 for simply disclosing product ingredients—even if those ingredients are really nasty. This is because USGBC is trying to encourage more transparency; although the ultimate goal is better performance, they argue that it’s too hard to track and incentivize that without a baseline to work from.

And much to the chagrin of certain actors in the chemical industry, points are also available under v4 for avoiding chemicals other than urea formaldehyde, the old standby.

 

3) Which of the following lesser-known programs is NOT poised to gain in stature through inclusion in LEED v4, in the way that LEED’s certified wood credit helped bring FSC into the mainstream?

      a.    Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)

      b.    Framework for Responsible Mining

      c.    GreenScreen

      d.    American High-Performance Buildings Coalition

      e.    Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

If you guessed the American High-Performance Buildings Coalition (AHPBC), you correctly sensed the one of these that was not like the other. Although only time will tell what it does, AHPBC appears to be positioning itself as a chemical-industry-friendly competitor to USGBC, and not a program likely to be referenced within LEED.

The other programs are referenced in LEED v4 drafts. The Framework for Responsible Mining is not referenced in the fifth draft, so that could also be a correct answer. The Framework was referenced in earlier drafts but not the fifth public comment draft, although current  language leaves USGBC the option of naming additional programs in the future.

 

4) Which of the following would LEED v4 require under a Building Envelope Commissioning (BECx) option for Enhanced Commissioning?

      a.    Implement a project specific plan that includes testing, who is to perform the testing, when testing will occur, criteria for acceptance, how testing will be documented and who will receive the documentation of the testing.

      b.    Review construction document details for continuity, performance, constructability and value. Review details for interface of the various enclosure systems.

      c.    Perform site observations to coordinate with specific installation of enclo- sure details, including field mock-ups, start-up of trades, complex details, field testing and problematic installations.

      d.    Verify mock up construction in the field to demonstrate workmanship has been completed and the work in place on the building complies with the manufacturer’s installation instructions, design intent and specifications.

      e.    None of the above

 

This was a bit of a trick question, because the options use language quoted directly from NIBS Guideline 3, a key document in defining appropriate BECx actions, and one referenced in LEED v4.

However, none of these specific actions are referenced in the draft LEED v4 credit language, and the draft language does not appear to require the kind of detail review, onsite testing, and observation that some argue is a key part of what makes BECx effective.

 

5) Why would you want to get a BUG rating number if you were working on a LEED v4 project?

      a.    You’d want to know how well your seed mixture is rated to perform in providing insect and wildlife habitat.

      b.    You’d want to increase the number of Bicycle User Groups you were serving with bicycle racks and routes.

      c.    You’d want to know how well an exterior luminaire does in relation to prescriptive requirements for light pollution reduction.

      d.    Everyone wants to avoid a Big Ugly Goof—especially when verifying your energy modeling results.

 

The “BUG” in BUG rating stands for Backlight, Uplight, and Glare—a system of subdivided zones around outdoor luminaires to measure and report fixture data for compliance with light pollution restrictions.

 

6) Why has California Section 01350 been removed from the LEED v4 drafts?

      a.    Because VOC emissions testing is no longer part of the rating systems.

      b.    Because Section 01350 is an inaccurate name for the required VOC testing method.

      c.    Because the credit for “no added urea formaldehyde” in certain materials has been removed.

      d.    Because wet-applied materials must now be tested for VOC emissions as well as VOC content.

 

Long story short: Section 01350 is a specification that deals with a number of IAQ issues. It’s not in and of itself an emissions testing standard, and it never has been.

01350 does reference a certain emissions testing standard, which has this catchy name: the CDPH Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1 (2010).

You can see the appeal of shortening that to 01350, but from now on you can expect to see the more accurate nicknames “CDPH Standard” or “CDPH Standard Method” in LEED and elsewhere.

 

7) Spatial daylight autonomy is a sophisticated way to model daylighting because:

      a.    it looks at available daylight over the course of an entire year.

      b.    it includes protection against glare.

      c.    it accounts for occupant behavior.

      d.    it measures actual daylight levels after construction.

Really sophisticated daylight modeling can also include glare simulations and certain occupant behaviors (like closing shades), but the metric known as spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) doesn’t do that on its own.

Rather, sDA looks at the percentage of time that a certain space can be free of any electric lighting (hence “autonomy”) over the course of a whole year. That’s different from older methods that just used the equinoxes as a proxy.

A separate metric is needed to account for glare (in LEED, annual sunlight exposure, or ASE, is used).

 

8) What’s the key difference in the LEED v4 rainwater requirements, versus LEED 2009’s stormwater management?

      a.    It’s all in the name: rainwater is a natural phenomenon; stormwater is a management problem.

      b.    There’s an emphasis on infiltration through use of onsite hydrology.

      c.    There isn’t much of a difference—just updated language.

      d.    Swales are preferred over rain gardens.

“B” is the answer we were looking for, but “A” is also acceptable, because it aligns with the overall theme in which low-impact development (LID) measures relying on soil science are favored over more simpler drainage and retention systems. At the same time, we don’t blame if you for choosing “C,” because if you’re not a hydrology expert, the differences can appear at a glance to be pretty academic. Answer “D” is definitely down the drain: rain gardens are generally preferred over swales under the new regimen.

 

9) Acoustic Performance is a new credit in all the LEED v4 BD&C rating systems, but Minimum Acoustic Performance is also a prerequisite in:

      a.    LEED for Schools

      b.    LEED for Healthcare

      c.    LEED for Hospitality

      d.    All of the above

Good acoustics are essential to the basic function of a school—learning—so certain minimal performance is required in that rating system. In LEED v4 for Healthcare, acoustics are given more meticulous attention in this credit, but it’s still not a prerequisite.

 

10) What is the big-picture thinking behind LEED v4’s Demand Response credit?

      a.    It’s just a big typo—was meant to be “Demand Repose” in support of office employees being able to request nap rooms.

      b.    LEED has a long history of paying attention to how buildings fit into their surrounding infrastructure when it comes to location, transportation, and wastewater—but not energy.

      c.    Improving bottom-line issues for green buildings.

      d.    Bringing LEED buildings up to speed with where a majority of commercial office buildings already are.

The Demand Response credit is meant to encourage two-way communication between buildings and electric utilities, supporting sophisticated load management on both sides of the meter. Experts are hoping that LEED will lead the way toward more buildings adopting these measures.

How did you do?

How did you do on our quiz? Do you disagree with any of the characterizations?

Feeling like you should bone up on LEED v4?

If you're already a LEEDuser member, look for the download link in the sidebar to the right.

Not yet a LEEDuser member? You can get the LEED v4 report for free with a 30-day trial subscription to LEEDuser.