I'll throw my two cents in that the USGBC should consider prohibiting smoking for LEED certification. I understand that pressure from the tobacco industry might prevent an outright ban. That industry has long pushed for controlled smoking rooms as an alternative to smoking bans. I suspect this is why smoking rooms are an option in the existing prerequisite.

For a smoking room to be effective the ventilation system must be balanced. Even with enhanced commissioning, there simply could not be enough testing to assure that a displacement ventilation system is operating as it should. Additionally, regardless of reduced PPAH & RSP levels in non-smoking areas, PPAHs and RSPs can still escape into those areas.

As a building operator, I cannot imagine consciously subjecting any of my occupants to carcinogens, even if they volunteer for it. My goal as a LEED AP is not only sustainable construction and operations, but healthy work environments, as well.

I imagine the systems required for smoking rooms also decrease building efficiency. Even if it's by a single percentage point, that flies in the face of our goal to reduce our impact and increase efficiency.

LEED is voluntary. Unless your city mandates certification, it is a building owner's choice to pursue the rigorous standards put forth by the rating system. I do not intend to alienate smokers. My only intent is to provide healthy, high performance buildings. You wanna smoke? Go outside. Just make sure it's 25' away from doors, vents, and operable windows. :)

This is welcome news that they are considering it - judging by anecdotal evidence, the biggest concern I have about eliminating precedence of previous CIRs is the inconsistency between different project reviewers - we all lose credibility with our clients, and more importantly GBCI and USGBC loses credibility if they don't apply rulings consistently between projects. We can only advocate for LEED if we have confidence in their rulings.

Tristan-I'd love to hear more information on this when you receive it. Thanks, Marian

This sounds similar to the situation encountered by zero-lot-line buildings (with no "site" to speak of), which LEEDuser discusses in our guidance on the NC 2009 SSp1 page.

I would recommend that you document the credit with a narrative report explaining which CGP requirements don’t apply to your project conditions, which do, and how you plan to implement them.

That thread is for New Construction, I am working on a Commercial Interiors project. My beef is that most of the other paths in this credit talk about "the existing" whatever (site drainage, hardscape, landscaping, etc), where-as this path (5) seems cut and pasted from the NC credit. The existing roof is white. You can't get more reflectance than that. We shouldn't be required to send a sample to a lab. A photo should suffice to prove this "beneficial characteristic." Getting the SSc1 for NC is much easier, maybe we should've built a new building instead of remodeling an existing one? (Read, sarcasm.)

We could do a "best guess" as to the roofing material here?

Yeah, this can be a tough one. First I would check a reference such as the LEED Reference Guide for BD&C for typical SRI of whatever type of roof it is to see if it is in the running for this credit.

Second, locating cut sheets for the product installed is the easy path here.

Your other options (more difficult) include removing a piece of the roof and sending it to a lab, or testing in place. These options were explored in a comment thread here.

I am not sure if there are any other options beyond that—which as you point out makes it tough for an existing roof. Anyone else have thoughts?

Good question, but I think you'll find that this approach is not accepted by USGBC/GBCI.

Projects frequently want to use a new technology to earn IDc1, whether it be BIM, or an innovative mechanical system, or something else. But USGBC has consistently stated that if you use a new technology or method to achieve a result that is already covered by a regular LEED credit, you cannot also earn ID points.

For example, an innovative mechanical system that contributes to EAc1 cannot earn you points under IDc1.

However, if you use BIM to realize environmental benefits that are innovative in nature and not covered under an existing LEED credit (or if you use BIM to pursue a LEED credit from a different rating system, such as LEED for Schools), then you may be eligible for a point.

USGBC/GBCI are the final authorities here, but I am pretty sure that is their approach.

Hi Byron, can you say more about what kind of information you're looking for? Like, how does one make this happen, is it a good idea, etc.? Is there a model for this practice that you're looking to replicate?

"Fees and turn-around times associated with submitting these inquiries is to be determined." ... Hopefully they don't get too hog-wild with the fees on this. We've already all shelled out 150 bucks a pop for the reference guides; it seems to me that they should be fairly generous in making clarifications to that same guide based on user feedback & inquiries. They are, after all, supposed to be a non-profit.

I'm wondering if this is the same thing I've been hearing about, or something different.

What I've being hearing is that USGBC would be collecting up CIRs that they consider precedent-setting, and boiling them down to the key points that are applicable to other projects, and publishing these on a monthly basis, or thereabouts, as "LEED Interpretations." This has not yet happened for LEED 2009, but I've heard that we could expect the first bath pretty soon.

This has some similarities with what you've heard, but also some key differences. Interesting....