Any word on LEED Online for Multiple Buildings?

Unfortunately, we do not have a revised date for the release of the group functionality in LEED Online.

It is advisable to wait for the functionality for group certification to be ready in LEED Online. If you have already registered a project that you would like to turn into a group project you can do that once the LEED Online functionality for group certification is available. However, because the group certification fees are not finalized, you may have to pay the difference in price when the project is moved from an individual to a group project. The fees will be billed based on the certification fees in place at the time of submittal.

Please also note that the group of buildings must achieve the same credits for the entire group and so all buildings must attempt the same credits. Some of the prerequisites and credits with calculated performance such as the energy credits must be achieved by each building. This is outlined in more detail in the guidance and appendices.

If you have any specific questions, we're happy to help. Please use the Contact Us form at http://www.gbci.org/contactus.

There is a link describing how to link registered projects to a registered master site.

https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co...

I'm still trying to figure out how to apply master site credits to multiple versions of rating systems.

In one case I have two v2 projects and a v2009 project. Per the new AGMBC v2 projects cannot use LEED v3 (v2009) campus credit documentation. Even if the requirements are identical, as they are with bikes, and parking.

In another case I have 10 v2, 1 v2009 and 10-12 v2012 projects. The shared documentation is limited to a single credit, on-site renewable energy. It doesn't matter which version of LEED a project is using. Renewable energy is drawn from in terms of an amount of energy. In this case the renewables are entirely solar (photovoltaic).

It would everyone's life easier if for certain credits, where it doesn't make a difference, or the more stringent requirements are followed of the rating systems used, to allow projects under LEED 2, 2009 and 2012 to use the campus credits. Restricting the allowance to v2009 projects only makes the certification process much more difficult.

Hello Hernando, Thank you for that thoughtful suggestion. The idea of allowing the use of Campus Credits across versions of the LEED rating systems (e.g. for projects in both v2 and 2009 rating systems on a shared campus) has certainly been discussed at USGBC and GBCI. However, the complexity of tracking which credits do have identical requirements from one version to another verses those that do not, combined with the fact that LEED Online v2 and v3 are very different software platforms, make implementation of this idea impractical at present. We will continue to explore the feasibility of your suggestion and we thank you for your feedback.

Eric, some of these credits are very simple to crossover, mainly the site credits, on-site renewable energy, and green power. Others are much more difficult and should be individual project based, not campus based, such as recycled content and construction waste.

My experience when submitting identical campus documentation for multiple projects is that the second reviewer will reject the campus credit if they disagreed with the first reviewer. Not good.

There is nothing beneficial with submitting identical and approved documentation with LEED certification reviewers disagreeing with each other. The AGMBC is supposed to prevent this. To solve that some credits need to be considered as long-term investments by an owner and by LEED.

Let me propose the solution to the GBCI. First, make this easy. Only apply this to certain credits, and not every credit. If you try to solve this for all credits you won't be able to do it. It only works for some credits.

Allow LEED Online v3 to be used document the certain campus credits. v3 projects gets linked to this as is currently allowed. The v2 projects do not get linked. It is up to the v2 project to provide a pointer to the v3 master credit they want considered that way. Also, leave it up to the v2 project to state how the requirements for both v2 and v3 have been met.

Restrict the use of v3 documentation for v2 projects to certain credit, the obvious ones: Site Selection, Development Density, Bicycles, Low-Emitting Vehicles, Parking Capacity, Stormwater Management, Water Efficient Landscaping, On-Site Renewable Energy, and Green Power.

If a new construction project changes any of the features approved in the campus credits then require that the campus credit documentation be updated. An update of course would require a review fee.

I think the bigger issue with the campuses is that in this thread we are really talking about organizations who have been dedicated to the LEED process for several years and who are being discouraged for the previous efforts. I understand that the GBCI is charged with maintaining the rigor of LEED but Hernando is right, most of the credits that carry over for campuses have not substantially changed. What about the university who in committing to build a building in LEED v2.1, set in motion policy changes for their campus that they have been following (ie bike racks, stormwater, parking) only to disover that in their LEED v3 project that that was all for naught when it comes to the new building? As I've said in previous posts, I can copy and paste very well and the sell of easier documentation falls on deaf ears. My fear is that the policies of the GBCI in LEED v3 are alienating the established base. Companies, who by the way, hire me to establish sustainable design strategies (emphasis on sustainable design and not on a particular program).

Image my campus concern. I have a large school district client with multiple campuses. 20-30 LEED buildings are planned, 8 already built, 3 under construction and the rest not in design yet.

The projects are all being paid for by a public bond, so it will take many, many years to design and build them all.

We already have LEED for schools v2 and 2009 projects. We will have LEED 2012 projects, and also the LEED version after 2012.

The owner is installing renewable energy systems on many but not all of the campuses. We have an approved LEED Interpretation that allows school districts, within certain constraints, to allocate the renewables to any project within the school district. So, a renewable system at a high school with good land resources can be assigned to a middle school that has no room for renewables.

I know how to manage the renewables between the projects. What I don't know is how the GBCI certification reviewers will react. We will likely get challenged on every project to prove the renewables are not double counted. I am certain I will also get review comments telling me to use the campus v3 documentation path even though I cannot. v2 projects cannot be linked to v3.

Hopefully, there won't need to be 20-30 detailed explanations. There are so many projects that it is likely the same reviewer will review more than one of the projects. Maybe they will remember, maybe not.

This where I think that the Block program could be of huge benefit if implemented properly. The block program could be the backbone of campuses such that the owner can update and monitor their 'block' inputs. The project teams (and let's assume that there are multiple A/E teams) can hook their project to the block and get up to date master credit information. They could also reserve capacity in the block credits for their project so it is there when they go to review. The GBCI reviewers can see where and to which project the capacity is going to.

For example, on a campus there are 1,000 bike parking slots and let's assume that it is centrally located to all buildings such that all buildings can stake a claim on these slots. Existing building A claimed 150 slots in their LEED v2.1 project. Building B is claiming 150 slots under their v2.2 project which is in progress. My project is Building C and has staked a claim for 500 slots leaving an excess capacity on campus of 200 slots. Shortly after we were released to do Building C, a competitor was granted the contract for Building D. They go to the LEED Block and want to claim 300 slots but find that only 200 are available. They then have the choice to add 100 slots or alter their credit strategy as the Owner sees fit. At all times, all the project teams know where they stand with the slots and so does the Owner and the GBCI. The Owner can assign a facilities person to monitor the block and as they do master planning, can use this information to integrate sustainable design into their plans in a deep and meaningful way.

(LEED project admin wakes from dream.)