I think the previous

The answers to your questions are up for debate right now as USGBC sorts out this process. However, my guess is that the precedent-setting interpretations will cost a bit more, and take a bit longer, so if you want a faster answer just for your project, you may prefer to continue with the existing CIRs.I have heard one practitioner speculate that they might seek a quick CIR ruling on something, and if it's favorable and they want to use it on other projects, perhaps it would be worthwhile to get a LEED Interpretation for the same question.

We hated the CIR database. While it was helpful to find answers to our questions, there was no possible way for us to be beholden to every decision made that way. We became like lawyers having to know every precedent setting decision. We actually got a credit denied because of a CIR that we had searched for and couldn't find in their bad web interface. So, I like the option of paying for an interpretation, but any changes that must be implemented across the board, should come out in the errata/addenda. We should not be required to memorize a constantly changing database.

I agree that "LEED Interpretations" need to be done through the addendum process. Consolidate the LEED information in one place - the LEED rating systems and reference guides.

I agree with Brittany and Kim. The research of CIRs was tedious at best. LEED addenda should be compiled and published on a regular schedule within the LEED system update schedule.

I had mixed feelings about the precedent setting process. While CIRs are very useful for unique circumstances, making them "precedent setting" sometimes created unnecessary challenges in the past. On a few projects, we had issues of having credits denied because of some CIR that was out there that either 1) we were unaware of (because of the bad user interface) or 2) wasn't appropriate for our project but USGBC wanted us to comply with the ruling anyways.

I also have mixed feelings on the merits of this issue - on the one hand, the absence of precedent-setting CIRs has been fairly crippling to entities with large building portfolios who need to know that their approach to a problem will be reviewed consistently across multiple buildings. On the other hand, the analogy with requiring projects to be lawyerly in their interpretation of precedent-setting CIR 'case law' is spot-on, and that was really challenging. In addition, that challenge affected the way that CIRs were answered in the past as TAGs had to often draft tortured responses to protect against misinterpretation by other projects with slightly altered circumstances. But what I am particularly pleased about is the message this sends - the USGBC/GBCI showing added agility and flexibility in changing program offerings and approaches to improve effectiveness. I feel like this willingness to respond, adapt and experiment bodes very well for the continued success of LEED.

I agree with Dan - this does send a positive message. The CIR database may have been clumsy and frustrating to navigate but at least they didn't charge us to look through it. I'm having a difficult time in convincing some of my clients that LEED certification is worth the expense without having USGBC come up with one more thing to charge a fee for. I know it's a small fee in relation to the bigger picture, but it plays into the opinion that USGBC is out to make money and that is getting harder and harder to defend. It's no fun being the messenger!

If they could somehow tie the CIR database to LEED Online in a better way, so you could click on a button while you're already within a credit description and see what applies to that credit, that might be more useful.

I also like the idea of compiling them all into LEED addenda, but my concern is how often that would be issued. Sometimes you just need an answer quickly and having to wait for a monthly or quarterly addendum isn't going to help.