Very disappointing

Renee Azerbegi

Mead and Hunt

LEEDuser Basic Member

9 thumbs up

November 11, 2014

This extension is most unfortunate as it makes LEED out of sync with ASHRAE’s energy targets for NZE per the ASHRAE 2020 Vision. In 2016 when LEEDv4 is adopted, the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 will be out and is intended to be 30% more efficient than 90.1-2010, but LEED-2009 buildings will still be referencing 90.1-2007. Also how does this timing reflect LEEDv5 whenever that is coming out? How is the USGBC going to push the building industry to higher levels of performance when they are not even keeping up with energy code adoptions across the nation?

Post a reply

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Tue, 11/11/2014 - 17:32

My impression is that v5 is not even on the radar yet but I could be wrong. I have not heard anything about how the development cycle for LEED will change. There was some discussion a while back about annual updates but I am not sure if this has evolved. Your second question is certainly fundamental to market transformation.

Glen Phillips

Sustainability Professional

Bright Green

LEEDuser Basic Member

31 thumbs up

Tue, 11/11/2014 - 21:09

I've heard similar that LEED v5 is not yet under development.

Martha Norbeck

President

C-Wise Design and Consulting

LEEDuser Premium Member

70 thumbs up

Wed, 11/12/2014 - 16:47

The ASHRAE 90.1 baseline needs to be upgraded for v3. If the USGBC insists on holding to the delay of v4, v3 will become an embarrassment as it slides further and further behind energy codes. L is meant to stand for leadership. In Iowa, v3 is already getting a little embarrassing as we discuss implementing ASHRAE 90.1-2013 next year, 2015.

Eric Johnson

Sustainable Cost Solutions LLC

LEEDuser Premium Member

195 thumbs up

Wed, 11/12/2014 - 17:10

Martha, How about all those single pane glazed, asbestos sided, newspaper (no) insulation farmhouses? What's Iowa code say about them? :) I think you guys are going a little overboard, if a project wants to go for LBC, v4, or v3 that's what the project team is going to do. I understand certain people put a lot of effort into improving the system (I did a little bit) and it understandably irritates them but v4 kind of looks like a mess (that's coming from someone who tries to know every detail of the rating systems). Requiring different energy codes based on registration dates does seem like a really good idea for projects that are going to go on for a long time yet.