How LEED credits are awarded

It's all or nothing

2 points for a 50% reduction in potable water 4 points for 100% reduction of potable water use for irrigation (no potable water use) whether that's achieved with no water use at all or the use of non-potable water

Mike, if you are questioning why some credits are worth multiple points when they do not seem worthy of those extra points, look up the information released by the USGBC when v3 launched on carbon reductions. Chris Pyke put out some impressive documents at the time.

It was recently suggested that partial points might be awarded for meeting the overall INTENT of this credit, if not the prescriptive requirements. By that, it was meant that the Development in question was, and I am paraphrasing the credit Intent: "...channeled to an area with existing infrastructure, protecting greenfields and preserving habitat and natural resources." The project in question is not within a dense urban area, is not within 1/2 mile radius of 10 or more services or within 1/2 mile of a residential neighborhood. However, it is a previously developed site utilizing existing infrastructure and protecting greenfields, habitat, and natural resources. Does anyone have any direct experience or indirect knowledge of partial points being awarded for this credit (or any credit for that matter) for meeting the overall intent of the credit without meeting each prescriptive requirement of Option 1 or 2? It seems logical and reasonable to encourage development in areast that meet at least some of the criteria in order to avoid Greenfield development, but I am unaware of partial points being awarded for situations such as this. Any insight would be much appreciated. Thank you

I have never heard of this and in general, my experience is that the LEED reviewers do not deviate beyond the credit requirements unless there is a very good reason. The intent of this credit is to channel development into urban areas and it doesn't sound like your project has met that intent, even if it is not a greenfield.

Thanks Ellen. While I am generally in agreement with you, having had the same experiences in my own reviews, I am hoping that we will both be proven wrong and I will be sure to comment in here as I learn more. The individual who suggested this approach is very knowledgeable about and experienced with LEED. I was hoping that someone in here had already attempted such an approach to further validate the effort. In my opinion, it does seem logical to encourage projects to meet some requirements (versus not meeting any), but then, my opinion is of course not the one that counts. Thanks again.

GBCI doesn’t award partial credit for either Option 1 or Option 2. If the project believes they meet the credit intent despite being a greenfield site served by existing infrastructure, they may consider filing a formal inquiry (CIR or LI) to confirm their approach is acceptable.

To be clear, the site is not a greenfield. It is a previously developed site with existing infrastructure. The only part of the "Intent" description that is not true of this site is the word "urban". However, thank you for your comment which confirms what I suspected. Again, if anyone has had any different experience, your description of that experience would be very much appreciated.