Last chance to comment on LEED v5

IPc Integrative Design Process. I'd like to suggest that the contractor and the commissioning agent be under contract and be present during the design no later than the design development phase of the project in order to earn this credit. All too often on hard bid projects, the design team is seeking this credit. A true integrative process includes the contractor for constructability as well as cost. In other words, the delivery of the project should at least design/build and/or construction management and not design-bid-build.

LTc Compact and Connected Development. Mission and vision, “At USGBC, we are building a better future where the built environment supports a healthy, sustainable world for ALL." My opinion is that the LEED rating system is not providing equal opportunities for ALL projects, particularly those that are in non-metropolitan areas. Meaning, there are states within the US that cannot attempt to achieve credits like this because there are no cities in the state that are large metropolitan areas. For example, in Wisconsin, most cities, including the second largest city, cannot achieve the Surrounding Density requirements because the municipal building code has height restrictions on buildings. Similarly, these cities do not have a high enough Walk Scores. The largest cities also cannot meet the public transit service weekday or weekend trip requirements; the LEED requirements are simply too high. The public transit systems in all cities that I have worked on LEED projects in have responded to the LEED requirements by saying that they are providing services based on usage, which minimizes waste (money) and reduces carbon emissions. It would be really nice to see equity in the LEED rating system to encourage ALL projects to build in a location that makes sense within their community, including to build near public transit services. ALL cities/college campuses should have an option to achieve credits based on their own community. Project teams should have the opportunity to justify why the transit services in their communities provides the number of trips that they do, which again is based on providing what is needed to meet demand and to minimize waste, which is a fundamental principle of sustainability. Trips are based on usage. By providing unnecessary trips, buses create carbon emissions and waste municipal funds. Bussing for K-12 schools and college campuses also needs to be addressed.

EAc Electrification: Focusing on equity and “leading a movement to create measurable improvements to enhance human, environmental, and community well-being around the world,” this credit should not be limited to strictly electric vehicles but should also include hydrogen vehicles. The idea of electrification makes sense if the electricity being produced is from renewable sources. However, when the electricity being produced is by coal-fired power plants, the emissions are not “clean.” Hydrogen vehicles are currently being marketed by auto manufacturers as "zero-emission vehicle, one that emits only water vapor as it carries people down the road per Car and Driver. These vehicles "emit no carbon dioxide or other harmful exhaust out [of] their tailpipes, just water vapor,” and unlike traditional EVs that can take hours to charge, "it takes just five minutes or so to refuel them for another 300- to 400-mile stint,” which is a major challenge for contractors. FCEVs can also "offer a longer driving range than electric vehicle batteries." Although electric cars don't emit any fumes or cause air pollution, they can greatly impact the environment, as the manufacturing and disposal of EV batteries can lead to pollution and resource depletion. FCEVs are superior on this front, as recycling hydrogen fuel cells is easy and cost-effective. The Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association recently produced a report extolling hydrogen vehicles. Among other points, it said that the carbon footprint is an order of magnitude better than electric vehicles: 2.7g of carbon dioxide per kilometer compared to 20.9g. There are organizations such as Amazon’s warehouses that use hydrogen forklifts. For the sake of equity, other technologies that are comparable to electric vehicles should be allowed to earn the credit.

MRc Reduce Embodied Carbon: The credit Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3 requirements should change to require the design team to analyze the products that they are specifying to be identified during the design, and as such submitted as part of the design review. Requiring the contractors to document this credit AFTER the products are already specified is backwards. If the requirements are going to be based on the cost of the products, then the second half of the requirements should be for the contractor to simply update the actual product cost, or at least the cost at bid time to the products that the design team has already identified and submit that with the construction review. After all, costs are supposed to be estimated during the design phases. From the contractors' perspective this would eliminate a lot of discrepancies between the front-end 01 35 00 Sustainable Design specifications, where LEED is often referenced or a LEED scorecard is thrown in, and the actual product specifications.

MRc Low-Emitting Materials requirements should change to require the design team to analyze the products that they are specifying to be identified during the design, and as such submitted as part of the design review. Requiring the contractors to document this credit AFTER the products are already specified is backwards. If the requirements are going to be based on the quantity of the products, then the second half of the requirements should be for the contractor to simply update the actual product quantity or at least the quantities at bid time to the products that the design team has already identified and submit that with the construction review. From the contractors' perspective this would eliminate a lot of discrepancies between the front-end 01 35 00 Sustainable Design specifications, where LEED is often referenced or a LEED scorecard is thrown in, and the actual product specifications, or lack of "adhesives/sealant/caulk" specifications in the actual product specifications.

MRc Building Disclosure & Optimization: The credit requirements should change to require the design team to analyze the products that they are specifying to be identified during the design, and as such submitted as part of the design review. Requiring the contractors to document this credit AFTER the products are already specified is backwards. If the requirements are going to be based on the cost of the products, then the second half of the requirements should be for the contractor to simply confirm the quantity and/or cost of the products during the submittal/shop drawing review phase.

Theresa - for the MR - BPDO credits, if the question is a matter of documenting what is specified vs. what is actually installed, could it be a two part documentation where the design team submits the materials specified and then any changes from what was specified are documented by the contractor encouraging both teams to submit and install compliant products.

There are a couple of issues that could be resolved by requiring the design team to pre-fill out the forms for the MR BPDO credits and the EQc LEM credit documentation.

1. What is specified in the "regular" specifications does not necessarily comply with the requirements for the MR BPDO credits or the Low-Emitting Materials credit. For example an adhesive or sealant that is specifically specified might not comply with the front-end LEED requirements. 

2. On public work, the architect is supposed to specify three similar products, and the qualified, low-bid subcontractors/suppliers get to choose the product they included in their bid. On private projects the architect can specify a single product. Again, what is specified in the "regular" specifications does not necessarily meet the front-end LEED requirements. And, substitutions might be accepted at bid time w/o checking if the product meets the LEED requirements.

As the contractor I spend way too much time confirming that the products that are submitted in the submit all phase, which are specified, do or do not meet the LEED requirements. This should be done upfront in the design phase. Contractors should not be doing this in the submittal phase. If the design team was required to identify the products that meet the LEED requirements upfront, in the design submittal, the contractor should simply be confirming the correctly specified product is being submitted and confirming the cost of the product. The submittal (product data and shop drawings) should not be bogged down with the pages/volume of LEED documentation. From the contractors' perspective, this slows down the submittal phase significantly and really irritates the site superintendents who are in the field trying to get the building built. 

If I can explain better over the phone, please feel free to contact me at 920.969.7314. I'd be happy to show you the submittal process in Procore as well via a Teams meeting. Or, if you will be at Greenbuild, I'd be happy to meet up with you. Thanks.

Biogenic Carbon is controversial and hot topic (esp. in EU) for good reason, but I would hate to see LEED v5 adopt the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that is referenced in some of the Embodied Carbon credit. Just because not all Biogenic Carbon is meaningful or equally valuable, does not mean that it does not have a role to play in addressing climate change if we do it right. Adopting a cradle-to-grave Embodied Carbon assessment approach to address this puts us into the very thin branches of LCA practice (Module C, which is just modeled "what if" scenarios, not actual data, in most EPDs). We need rules for Biogenic Carbon and rigorous analysis of Module A (and B if Maintenance or Useful Life introduce trade-offs), not increasing dependence on the fragile and erratic data that populates Module C.

LT>Equitable Development>Option 2>Path 1: Support Local Economy

1. Additional clarity on the definition of the administrative district would be helpful. Depending on the project and the definition of the administrative district, this credit can do more by allowing projects to implement this initiative in different ways. It might make more sense to make this credit to support the local economy in the long-term by opening this credit to other types of industries (sanitation, landscaping, etc.) that can also support the local economy.

LT Credit> Transportation Demand Management>Option 1>Path 2: Parking Fee 1. For EV parking and ADA parking, will the pricing approach of the parking fee credit also be required?2. This credit suggests that the alternative to reducing parking spaces, is simply to raise the prices of the parking spaces that are being built. It seems like the pay off for the former (reduced parking) has much greater benefits for the environment versus the latter one is just financially punishing users, while not providing any better options. The idea of providing car share was eliminated in this version, yet this credit should consider implementing a useful resource for alternatives to driving, beyond just charging market-rate or higher parking fees. Either adding a car share option or pairing this path 2: Parking fee with the "Option 2: Access to transit" credit could ensure that occupants actually have reliable alternatives when faced with paid parking.

Many public projects are required to go to bid and have open specs. I appreciate the intent to put some responsbility on the design team for the set of contract documents, but I'd be cautious about adding any requirements to the credit language that excludes projects that can't legally bring on a contractor early (perhaps a consulting CM) or specify particular manufacturers. 

From the design side though I would definitely take advantage of the option to submit a bill of materials in the design phase and simply have the contractor confirm it / add quantities / add un-specified adhesives etc post completion. Better to know prior to construction whether GBCI will accept or reject a given piece of LEM documentation. 

(ETA: oops, missed some follow up posts between clicking reply and clicking post! Looks like Theresa covered this!)

How applicable is Walkscore Option in Europe where the interface and coverage is nowhere near as updated as in America? What is the workaround?