Option 2 Optimization - from what?

Have you found answers?  We're researching and will share!

Hi Margaret and Kath! Sorry for being so slow here. Since they failed to specify what the baseline is for these reductions, I just assumed that they meant that baseline to be the same as in v4. Our guidance on that credit says:

The “improved” environmental footprint can be in comparison to one of two benchmarks:

• an older EPD of the same product (showing improvement over time), or
• an industry-average EPD, as long as the product manufacturer was also a participant in creating the industry average version.

I'll try to check on this with USGBC, but I'm pretty confident that's the intent. Nadav

Ok, I heard back from USGBC on this. I should have paid more attention to the 2nd part of your question, Margaret--the narratives are the sticking point. It turns out that that the baselines for reduction are as I mentioned, but more specific. Comparison to the industry averages counts at 1.5x, comparison to a previous version of the same product counts at 2x. The sticky part is that these comparisons have to be provided (published) by the manufacturer AND third-party verified. So you can't just do your own comparison to show the reductions. More from USGBC:

We are starting to see some of these optimization reports be created. UL, SCS and others are beginning to develop these labels for instance. Also keep in mind that Action Plans are eligible for helping meet this credit option, and we’ve seen more of those published in recent times. We published a “sample” EPD action plan that should help manufacturers understand what they need to do for a compliant Action Plan. But again, all these Option 2 documents are to be developed by manufacturers, not design teams.

I think that makes this option substantially more challenging, but hopefully getting to 10 products should be doable before too long...?

Thanks for digging into Option 2 Nadav.  My related question on the Action Plans, which i think are going to be the near-term way to get this point, is what qualifies as "critically reviewed."  We have the full 200% documentation for our carpet tile, but that doesn't help teams get the point if there are not at least 8 other products or 16 Action Plan products with documentation too.  I'm trying to get some other manufacturers to at least do the action plan, but whether or not they have to hire an outside LCA consultant to perform this review is important in terms of cost right now.  Has anyone seen a definition of "critically reviewed" for EPD Option 2?

Interior Coatings ConFlex™ Block Filler 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-105 Interior Coatings Harmony® 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-106 Interior Coatings Loxon Concrete & Masonry Primer® 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-104 Interior Coatings Multi-Purpose Latex Primer 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-107 Interior Coatings PrepRite ProBlock® 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-108 Interior Coatings PrepRite® Block Filler 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-109 Interior Coatings Pro Industrial™ Pre-Catalyzed Waterbased Epoxy 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-110 Interior Coatings ProMar© 200 HP Zero VOC 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-102 Interior Coatings ProMar© 200 Zero VOC 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-101 Interior Coatings ProMar© 400 Zero VOC 06/30/2019 - 06/30/2022 EPDAP-103 As I said on another thread, USGBC has confirmed that an Action Plan can be considered "Critically Reviewed" if reviewed by an LCA expert (either internally or externally), so this needn't be expensive to get your 1/2 product/50% spend action plan at larger manufacturers who have their own internal LCA team to perform this Review.  Sherwin Williams has a good set of Action plans (Joanna Switzer posted these on another question thread)