GBCI Extends Utility Reporting Requirement to 20 Years?

UPDATE (11.05.10) I just received a comment from Bruce DeMaine, Vice President of Certification for GBCI. He confirmed, as others noted in the comments below, "that the 20-year figure is a typo. The utility reporting time period was decreased to 5 years shortly after the introduction of the LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements. We are working with our information technology staff to correct this error as soon as possible." He also addressed other concerns I've raised below, and I've added his response to the end of the post in it's entirety. I'd like to personally thank him for reaching out to clear up this issue! I've left the remainder of the post as it was originally published:

Alert reader Eric Johnson of Gardiner & Theobald just pointed out that the latest edition of the LEED Certification Policy Manual (September 17, 2010 Release) has increased the period for which you must allow the GBCI access to utility data from a minimum of 5 years to at least 20 years:

"It is the intent of GBCI to review ongoing project performance to assess project compliance with LEED Green Building Rating System requirements. Project owners authorize GBCI to access and review their project’s Energy and Water Usage Data from the utility service provider and/or the whole-project metering facility where such meters are in place. This authorization shall be maintained for a period of twenty (20) years following the date the project achieves LEED certification."

This rather significant change has not been publicized in any way that I can see (the most recent LEED Update newsletter dated 10/29/10 doesn't mention the change), and it doesn't appear that the GBCI has informed the USGBC or its own legal department, as the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) document provided by the USGBC still shows the five year requirement (see page 4), as does the LEED Registration Agreement that was updated three days after the certification policy manual was changed (see page 6).

A New Process Needed

My biggest complaint with the LEED system right now is how these administrative changes are handled. Changes to LEED credits themselves are made using a thorough and rigorous comment and voting process from the membership on a regular schedule... and that's a good system. On the other hand updates to the LEED policy manuals, documentation requirements, reference guides, the MPRs, owner legal agreements, supplementary reference materials, and a vast array of other critical components of LEED certification seem to occur randomly and there's no system to easily see changes as they occur or to determine what requirements are in place when a project is registered.

The mechanisms by which LEED projects are completed must be stabilized. If it were up to me, there would be no changes to these ancillary materials between rating system updates, and ALL materials related to the LEED rating system should be open to comment. I don't have a problem not putting those ancillary materials up to a vote, but I think there is far more concern over things like LEED Certification Agreement and the LEED Project Registration Agreement than the GBCI/USGBC realize, if for no other reason than it's difficult to find these documents and no real path for commenting on them.

Let me use those two legal documents as an example. You can't even access those two documents before going through the registration process unless you happen to know the URLs for them (i.e. they don't appear to show up in any search results or accessible via links on the GBCI site prior to registration). The certification Agreement is in its second edition (09.20.10), and the registration agreement is in its third edition (09.20.10), yet when I log on to my project that was registered in 07.10 I don't have any access to the documents I agreed to at that date. There's no document highlighting the changes that I'm aware of, and the simple fact that they've changed 2-3 times in about a year is alarming in itself. Since these documents aren't mentioned until you start the registration process, I'm sure has made many first time v3 users look foolish to the project owners who are now forced to agree to another layer of restrictions that was not mentioned previously.

At the end of the day, I still believe the content of the LEED rating systems are the best available for a comprehensive assessment of , but the ever increasing warren of support documents and the added requirements they contain must be controlled or at least better organized and publicized. The USGBC and GBCI need to understand that those actually administering LEED projects are greatly impacted by such changes, and every time a change is made without ample notice we're at best unpleasantly surprised and at worst humiliated in front of our clients for appearing to be inept. That's not to say I don't welcome more stringent guidelines over time, and I welcomed the more stringent energy and water baselines in the LEED 2009 system. At the same time, however, it's more important to be predictable and consistent than it is to be 100% perfect. There's always the next edition, and there's absolutely no reason this reporting requirement couldn't wait until LEED 2011...

Please forgive my rant... I'm still VERY excited about Greenbuild and look forward learning more there.

Mr. DeMaine's Response

As Vice President of Certification for GBCI, I’d like to thank you for bringing these issues related to the LEED certification procedural documents and various associated agreements to our attention. GBCI can confirm that the 20-year figure is a typo. The utility reporting time period was decreased to 5 years shortly after the introduction of the LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements. We are working with our information technology staff to correct this error as soon as possible. In the meantime, please refer to the LEED Project Registration Agreement and the LEED Certification Agreement, both of which properly represent that this program is limited to 5 years.

To address the stated concerns regarding lack of access to these documents, both before and after participants register and/or certify projects, all of our current contracts and policy manuals are available at the LEED Online website, www.leedonline.com. To access these documents, visitors to LEED Online must register with the website by creating a site user account. The creation of a site user account is a free service by GBCI. Site users may login to LEED Online and access these documents by going to our “Legal” page. The LEED Certification Policy Manuals are also available on the GBCI website, www.gbci.org.

Regarding revisions to these documents, GBCI has pledged to make changes to our program documents and agreements more transparent. The next scheduled release of such documents will occur shortly before Greenbuild. The coming revision is largely being put forth to incorporate the launch of several additional new programs related to LEED. Further, it is our endeavor to summarize our revisions to these documents and future releases in an open and transparent manner. Such summaries will be made available within LEED Online and, to the extent possible, posted to the GBCI website.



On behalf of the organization, thank you for interest in our certification program and commitment to sustainability. If you or any of your readers have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at bdemaine@gbci.org.

The LEED Size Gap: When a Renovation Is Ineligible for LEED Certification

A few days ago I got a very interesting email from my new best friend Dan Overbey of Browning Day Mullins Deirdorf Architects. He relayed a story about a client who was building a 16,000 sf horizontally attached addition to an existing 25,000 sf building. The client was committed to sustainable design and was very enthusiastic about pursuing LEED. When BDMD was looking at choosing the appropriate LEED system for their scope, they learned that the project appears to be in a strange LEED 'size gap'.

The core of the problem is that limits on registrations for additions on LEED-NC projects are based on the combined footprint of the existing building + the addition, whereas elgibility for including an addition a LEED-EB certification is based only on the footprint of the existing building... and the two are not mutually exclusive. According to the registration walk-through process on the GBCI website, a project is ineligible for LEED-NC if the scope of work is less than 60% of the total project square footage. Additionally, a project is ineligible for current registration for LEED-EB if the scope of the work is greater than 50% of the existing project square footage:

Dan was kind enough to put together a summary of the issue in this convenient paper... Note that it is possible for a horizontal addition to apply for LEED-NC separately from the existing building if (a) the addition is physically distinct from the original (defined as having party walls separating the space along with separate lighting, HVAC, and plumbing systems) AND (b) the addition has a separate address or name than the existing building. This particular project did not meet those requirements, so they went back to the drawing board.

You may have noticed that I used the phase 'ineligible for current registration' when I mentioned LEED-EB above. Ultimately, the project in question is eligible for LEED-EB, but only after the renovation is complete (the whole facility will be 'existing' at that point), meaning they cannot pick up points for good construction practices under the LEED-EB credits MRc3 and MRc9 Facility Alterations and Additions related credits. It also means that their performance periods cannot begin until the addition is complete, causing a long delay between substantial completion and certification.

To the USGBC and GBCI's credit, they have developed fairly effective tools for helping with system selection. Anyone registering a project for LEED 2009 runs into a sort of registration 'wizard' as part of signing up that helps them select the proper system if they're unsure what to use, and running through the same wizard resulted in a LEED-EB suggestion when I answered these questions with this project in mind. Also, the USGBC has released a LEED Rating System Selection Policy that offers additional guidance, though the issue at hand is not discussed in detail.

Making Something Out of Nothing?

I've been trying to get my head around this issue for days now, and I'm trying to figure out if this is a legitimate problem with the way LEED eligibility is determined or whether this specific instance happens to be a rare outlier and that the USGBC can't be blamed for not covering every construction project imaginable... In my mind no LEED system has really been a great fit for partial (in size) but comprehensive (in scope) renovations or additions, and I'm very curious to hear your thoughts about the subject. Are there others out there that had to go back to their client telling them LEED wasn't an option? Is there a need for a system tailored to renovations that's distinct from LEED-CI but more flexible than LEED-NC? Please share your thoughts by leaving a comment!

Vanishing LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirement?

UPDATE - 06.12.09 - This issue has largely been resolved... details at end of post.

When I spent all day going through the new LEED 2009 Building Design & Construction reference guide and reporting about the changes, one thing that I noticed was a portion of the Minimum Program Requirements (MPR) referencing that "Registration and Certification Activity Must Comply with Reasonable Timetables and Rating System Sunset Dates". Here's what I said on this subject:

"[This requirement] basically states that if a LEED 2009 project is inactive for 4 years, the GBCI reserves the right to cancel the registration, that all paperwork must be finished within 6 years of the retirement of the system (i.e. 2017 for the LEED 2009 system), and that certification must be complete within 2 years of project occupancy."

Just a day or so ago I had one of my coworkers ask about these requirements in regards to a new project that's got a long time frame, saying he couldn't find that clause anywhere. The MPRs aren't in the reference guides, as they're listed in the free PDF rating systems (see LEED-NC 2009 here). I went back to check (see pages XVI - XVII) and sure enough no such clause is listed???

I know I didn't just invent these requirements out of thin air, but I'm a little troubled at the thought that these requirements and the rating systems themselves are getting tweaked without any notice. No release dates are listed on these documents (that I can find at least), and I'm now curious about how many versions have been updated over time. Unfortunately I didn't save a copy of the rating system on that day, so the only 'proof' I have is the earlier post linked to above. There is also reference to a "LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance" that I have yet to be able to find which may clear this up.

Has anyone else noticed this or have a copy of the older edition of the rating system? Please let me know I'm not crazy by leaving a comment.

UPDATE - 06.12.09

Thanks to many readers who quite quickly left comments and forwarded documents, this seems to have already been cleared up! There are in fact different editions of the rating system documents. Thanks to Chris Collins of McKenney's Mechanical Contractors and Engineers, you can view the older version of the LEED-EB 2009 rating system here, showing 8 minimum program requirements including the one about sunset dates. The current version with only 7 requirements can be downloaded from the USGBC here.

Furthermore, the requirement still exists according to various readers in the comments section. From what I can tell, the USGBC decided to remove this language from the MPR in favor of having you sign off on the dates as part of registering a project. The language is buried in the legal mumbo-jumbo section (that's an official legal term). See comments for details.

The BIG Review: LEED 2009 Reference Guides Released

NOTE - This is the longest post in Real Life LEED history. You may groan at the thought of reading the text below, but I assure you it's a much quicker way to get up to speed with the changes in the new LEED 2009 systems then reading through the new reference guide as I did. Man up, read the following, and sound smart around your colleagues.

For those that aren't aware, the LEED 2009 reference guides are now available for purchase online. There is also an expanded page on LEED 2009 info that features some new date information. The most important fact is that LEED 2009 registrations go live on April 27th, though you won't be required to register under the new version until June 27th, which is two months earlier than previously announced. Current v2 projects can voluntarily opt into the new v3 system from the April launch until October 24th. Here is an updated schedule direct from the USGBC:

Back to the reference guides... There are two versions available - a hard-copy that comes with 30-day access to a non-printable PDF, and an 'e-book' version that is a printable PDF for $10 less. Both can be downloaded and saved. I opted for the e-book version, and I imagine most will do the same. Amazingly, you have to pay shipping for either copy? And just in case you forget the copyright agreement you agreed to with the E-book don't worry, it's watermarked on EVERY FREAKIN' PAGE of the reference guide.

Though I've not worked with the material yet, it appears that there are more detailed examples and many more helpful tables, charts, and graphs. In general it seems like this guide is more user-friendly. A last bit of good news is that the entire guide is a single file instead of being annoyingly split into the different categories as was done previously.

If you're not yet ready to drop $144 for a reference guide, the official rating systems are now posted on the USGBC website. There isn't anywhere near as much detail, but it's certainly more than nothing. For some reason the minimum project requirements aren't in the reference guide, so you have to download these to see that anyway:

• LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
• LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings and Operations & Maintenance
• LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors
• LEED 2009 for Core and Shell
• LEED 2009 for Schools doesn't appear to be loaded as of 03/28/09

Some bad news... the new Green Building Design and Construction Reference Guide, 2009 Edition clocks in at a whopping 674 pages, but some supremely good news is that they combined the LEED-Schools, LEED-NC, and LEED-CS guides all into one, saving you money. LEED for Healthcare and LEED for Retail will be included, but as they're still in pilot they aren't at this time. LEED-CI and LEED-EB still get their own reference guides... Every credit for every system is listed in order, and depending on which system you're using you can simply ignore what doesn't apply.

A Bad Omen

A lot of fuss has been made about technical improvements as part of the v3 system, so let's take a look at my first experience with the new launch:

Same ol', same ol

Yep, though there was no problem paying for the new reference guides on Friday, I couldn't actually download them until Saturday morning. I've tried to be understanding about whoever the IT staff at USGBC and GBCI, but if the new LEED-Online launch is similarly poor then management should strongly consider either increasing funding for this or warming up the ol' pink slip machine... Luckily it's really rainy here in Charleston on this lovely Saturday so I have nothing better to do than read a reference guide and report the findings to you!

And now... the review!

I'm not going to repeat what I've already covered before, so if you haven't read my initial review of the 2009 draft you may want to now. In general, I'm more knowledgable about LEED-NC than either LEED-CS or LEED for Schools, so it's very likely I may have missed a few differences between the current and new versions of those... Off we go!

Minimum Program Requirements

The first new thing you encounter are a set of Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) that describe eligibility for each system and will "evolve over time in tandem with the LEED rating systems." Though there are eight requirements that are standardized for all systems, the thresholds and levels apply differently for each system and are defined in the rating systems linked above. There is going to be a separate "Supplemental Guidance document" on these issues that as far as I can does not yet exist. It looks like these requirements more clearly state which system to use when, which is definitely a good thing. LEED-NC lists the following requirements (I'm only providing short summaries) as a prerequisite to applying for certification:

1. Must Comply with Environmental Laws - ...duh
2. Must be a Building - States that the project must "include the new, ground-up design & construction or major renovation of at least one building in its entirety." This also forces multiple buildings within a "single construction contract and ownership... within the boundary of a contiguous area" to be handled under a single certification. I'm currently working on a set of buildings that would not be in compliance with this requirement. Finally, there is an interesting clause that states that projects must be built "on already existing land"... I guess no LEED v3 certifications on Dubai's artificial beaches!
3. Must Use a Reasonable Site Boundary - There are a lot of clauses in here that sound strict at first but generally allow for loopholes based on special circumstances.
4. Must Comply with Minimum FTE and Floor Area Requirements - This is new... If the project has less than 1 FTE than it is no longer eligible for Indoor Environmental Quality points, though you still must comply with prerequisites. For LEED-NC the project must have at least 1,000 gsf of "indoor, enclosed building floor area".
5. Must Comply with Minimum Occupancy Rates - Applies to LEED-EB only.
6. Registration and Certification Activity Must Comply with Reasonable Timetables and Rating System Sunset Dates - Basically states that if a LEED 2009 project is inactive for 4 years, the GBCI reserves the right to cancel the registration, that all paperwork must be finished within 6 years of the retirement of the system (i.e. 2017 for the LEED 2009 system), and that certification must be complete within 2 years of project occupancy.
7. Must Allow USGBC Access to Whole-Building Energy and Water Usage Data - Let's call this one the Henry Gifford clause. The rating will not be tied to the information provided, and the owner does not have to "actively supply USGBC with information, but simply authorize the USGBC to access the information". This is long overdue, and I imagine in the long term will do more to create accurate energy and water modeling standards than anything else to date. Long overdue and a great idea. As to what 'allowing USGBC access' means is yet to be seen.



Go Go Gadget-Debate!

8. Must Comply with a Minimum Building Area to Site Area Ratio - The project's floor area must be at least 2% of the total site area. I'd be curious to learn the reasoning behind this clause. I suspect it has something to do with the sometimes contrary goals of the development density and maximize open space credits.

Regional Priority Credits

The regional 'bonus points' mentioned in the first review post are not spelled out in the reference guide in any real detail other than to say that points will be determined automatically in LEED-Online based on zip code, and that "the USGBC website also contains a searchable database of Regional Priority credits" that does not yet exist.

EDIT - 04.21.09 - The regional credits have now been released. Find a link to these and my first take on the matter here.

LEED-CS Appendices

Featured in the original LEED-CS reference guides, there are a series of appendices that have been updated and expanded in the current edition. Most notable is a greatly improved default occupancy count list (now featuring 13 building types instead of only 4) that includes both FTE and transient occupancy numbers where applicable. I would suggest many NC projects will benefit from these numbers as well, particularly as they relate to hotels, retail, and restaurants which were previously unavailable. There are also new sections on Tenant Lease or Sales Agreements and Precertification Guidance.

Key Credit Changes

Again... this is only the stuff that hasn't been mentioned earlier... Most of the comments below reflect basic clarifications, but a few credits (see SSc5.1 for the first example) have structural changes to the credits that were essentially not voted on during the draft phase. Ditto for the mandatory program requirements covered above. This is my one major problem with the way the drafts are commented on, voted for, and approved. I would argue that having the distinction between the 'rating system' and the 'reference guide' is meaningless, the reference guides ARE the rating system. I would hope future approval processes for LEED will allow for the evaluation of the entire system, not just the first few pages. Basic referenced standards updates (i.e. from a 2004 to a 2007 standard) are not addressed in the comments below.

Sustainable Sites

SSp1 - Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (NC, CS, Schools) - Now requires photo documentation, inspection logs, or reports to verify compliance.

SSc4.1 - Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access (NC, CS, Schools) - The CIR approved exemplary performance option about 'doubling transit ridership' has been formally incorporated into the reference guide.

SSc4.2 - Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms (NC, CS, Schools) - Offers clearer guidance on determining FTE and occupancy counts than previous editions.

SSc4.3 - Alternative Transportation--Low-Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (NC, CS, Schools) - Clearly defines preferred parking via discounts for spaces as at least 20% below the normal price. For NC projects, defines a compliance path option for a low-emitting vehicle sharing program.

SSc5.1 - Maximize Open Space (NC, CS, Schools) - In the implementation section, there is a clause that states "if a 10-acre site contains 5 acres of greenfield and 5 acres of previously developed land, site disturbance must be limited in the greenfield area, and native and adapted vegetation must be protected or restored for at least 50% (excluding the building footprint) of the previously developed site area." This seems like it could be pretty confusing and limiting on sites where this occurs. There is also an additional exemplary performance option (also not voted on) that allows credit for restoring 30% of the site including the building footprint OR 75% of the site excluding the building footprint, whichever is greater.

SSc7.1 - Heat Island Effect--Non-Roof (NC, CS, Schools) - Allows area shaded by solar panels or other renewable energy sources (say, over parking) to be added to your qualifying area calculation. A graphic (page 115) showing shaded area resulting from vegetation indicates significantly more shading area than I would have typically assumed...

SSc8 - Light Pollution Reduction - Lighting zones better clarified. Looks like they forgot to include sports field allowances for schools on page 131... Whoops! The numbers do show up on page 137 though.

Water Efficiency

WEp1 and WEc2 - Water Use Reduction (NC, CS, Schools) - The 20% requirement that was formerly a point is now a prerequisite. Points begin at a 30% reduction and rise up to 45% for exemplary performance. In general there is some helpful information about how the EPA WaterSense program requirements relate to the LEED requirements.

EDIT 02/11/10 - I've recently discovered that in addition to adding a prerequisite, the baseline that the design cases are compared to has shifted from 2.2 gpm to .5 gpm for public faucets. This change has been explained in detail in a post called Key Baseline Changes in 2009 Edition of WEc3, Water Use Reduction.

WEc4 - Process Water Use Reduction (Schools only) - Nothing major changing here, but I must wonder why this hasn't be adopted to fit into NC and CS projects? Again I blame the limited means of commenting and adapting drafts of rating systems.

Random Entertaining Picture Break:

A literal (fire) stairway to heaven?

Back to work...

Energy and Atmosphere

EAp1 (EAc3) - Fundamental (Enhanced) Commissioning of Building Energy Systems (NC, CS, and Schools) - Provides much greater detail of step-by-step process for moving through owner's project requirements, basis of design, and commissioning coordination as well as greater detail about who is and is not allowed to act as the commissioning authority, though none of these requirements are new as far as I can tell.

EAp2 (EAc1) - Minimum (Optimize) Energy Performance (NC, CS, and Schools) - Though calculations are now based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 instead of the less stringent 2004 edition, the required benchmarks have been lowered as well (the v3 prerequisite calls for a 10% reduction over 2007 standard, whereas in v2.2 a 14% reduction over the 2004 standard is required). Additional ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide compliance paths have been added for retail, small warehouse buildings, and schools. Beyond that, I would love it if someone more familiar with the details of energy performance would be willing to comment on changes...

EAc2 - On-Site Renewable Energy (NC, CS, and Schools) - This credit now offers regular points generating as little as 1% and as much as 13% of the power needed by the building (exemplary performance is set at 15%). There is also a clause that clearly forbids including energy that is generated but not used or energy that is to be sold back to the grid (presumably via net-metering). Furthermore, the owner can not sell Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for the power they are claiming as part of calculations. This language is not in the v2 reference guides, though there may have been a CIR related to the subject already in effect that I'm not aware of. There is also a documentation requirement in regards to "any incentives that were provided to support the installation of on-site renewable energy systems."

EAc5.2 - Measurement and Verification--Tenant Submetering (CS only) - In addition to v2 requirements, the project team must "[p]rovide a process for corrective action if the results of the M&V plan indicate that energy savings are not being achieved."

Materials and Resources

This edition of the reference guide finally references MasterFormat 2004 in it's definitions of what is and is not included in the qualified materials figures for MRc3-7. Instead of the 1997 divisions 2-10 definition, they now cite 2004 divisions 3-10, 31.6, 32.1, 32.3, and 32.9. Division 12 (furniture and furnishings) is still optional.

MRp1 - Storage and Collection of Recyclables (NC, CS, and Schools) - Clearly indicates that "it may be possible to create a central collection area that is outside of the building footprint or project site boundary" if you can "document how the recyclable materials will be transported to the separate collection area." This was allowed previously as evidenced by CIR's but caused confusion among many.

MRc1.1 - Building Reuse--Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof (NC, CS, and Schools) - Due to additional points being assigned to these credits, the thresholds for achievement have changed. 55%-95% for NC, 25-75 for CS, and 75-95 for Schools. Only CS has an exemplary performance option at 95%.

MRc5 - Regional Materials (NC, CS, and Schools) - Clarifies 'manufacturing location' as the "place of final assembly of components into the building product that is furnished and installed by the tradeworkers", which is consistent with past CIR's but caused confusion among many. Annoyingly, a later example graphic shows multiple manufacturing locations all being within the circle, making me doubt myself about the certainty of this ruling?

MRc6 - Rapidly Renewable Materials (NC, CS, and Schools) - Now includes a graphic (below - taken from page 389 of the guide) showing how wood is clearly not within the USGBC's definition of rapidly renewable. Take that, lumber-industry shills!

Five Fingers to the Face!

MRc7 - Certified Wood - Goes into much greater detail about FSC chain-of-custody reporting requirements and how to report them for LEED purposes.

Indoor Environmental Quality

EQp3 - Minimum Acoustical Performance (Schools only) - The USGBC has simplified but strengthened the compliance paths for this credit, essentially calling for sound absorptive materials for an are larger than ceiling area. A much more prescriptive approach will make this credit possible to understand and implement by architects, though some guidance will still be needed regarding background noise levels and possibly ANSI Standard S12.60-2002. I would greatly appreciate an acoustician's point of view on the new requirements if you would care to share your thoughts in the comments.

EQc4 - Low-Emitting Materials (NC, CS, and Schools) - I'm a bit upset on this one... wasn't a large part of the LEED 2009 system supposed to be credit alignment? The LEED-Schools version still references separate standards than NC and CS?!? No word yet on whether or not the PIECAP ruling for the previous version still applies. A link to a list of LEED-Schools compliant products is available here. Similarly, why aren't the full six options available to NC and CS projects?

EQc4.3 - Low-Emitting Materials--Flooring Systems (NC, CS, and Schools) - This was formerly the 'carpet systems' standard, now expanded to included hard surface flooring. The standard carpets remains the same. FloorScore is used for other surfaces, and any stains or sealants on wood or other materials must comply with EQc4.1 requirements. An alternative option is to use products meeting CHiPS requirements.

EQc5 - Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (NC, CS, and Schools) - Those metal grates by your main entries must be 10' long instead of just 6'. Also, there is a new requirement to "provide containment for appropriate disposal of hazardous liquid wastes in places where water and chemical concentrate mixing occurs." There are also additional requirements for separating 'battery banks used to provide temporary back-up power'.

EQc7.2 - Thermal Comfort--Verification (NC and Schools) - There is now a clause that state that earning this credit "is contingent on achieving EQc7.1, Thermal Comfort--Design." I checked the old NC reference guide and couldn't find anywhere where this was required. Our projects haven't had any problem achieving 7.1 before, so I can't be sure if this is something I've missed in the past? Again, this seems like a very reasonable clause, but shouldn't it have been part of the draft and not buried in section 4 of the reference guide?

EQc8.1 - Daylight and Views--Daylight (NC, CS, and Schools) - This credit has abandoned the 2% daylight factor calculation in favor of one that uses a more simple multiplication of glazing visible transmittance and window to floor area ratio. There are also now maximum footcandle levels (500 fc)if you're using a simulation. There is a clause that rids you of the maximum levels if you "incorporate view-preserving automated shades for glare control." Finally, there is a fourth "combination" option that allows you to use any of the above to document individual compliant spaces. This could be very helpful in a lot of situations where you have a bunch of 'normal' spaces and one or two weird ones (i.e. an atrium spanning multiple floors).

EQc8.2 - Daylight and Views--Views (NC, CS, and Schools) - Nothing substantial changed here, though I just wanted to point out that Figure 3 on page 570 isn't technically correct. Every piece of the open plan office should have access to views since they are surrounded on three side by windows. The drawing indicates blind spots along every wall, which is not the case since one could just look out windows along the other wall. Nit-picky? Yes, but I can already see the arguments popping up in offices across the land!

EQc9 - Enhanced Acoustical Performance (Schools only) - This was downgraded from up to two points being offered currently to only one in the future. The lower levels of the requirements (min 35 STC between rooms and max 40 dBA background noise) are the ones that made the cut. Option 2 (about HVAC RC levels) was removed entirely.

Innovation in Design

IDc1 - Innovation in Design (NC, CS, and Schools) - Expanded to up to 5 points for NC and CS and remaining at 4 points for Schools, there is now a maximum of 3 points allowed for exemplary performance options. There are more (or perhaps just better clarified?) requirements for what constitutes 'innovation and design' eligibility.

That's All Folks!

After about ten hours invested in this review and post, two months of last-minute LEED AP exam classes, and overall dedication to LEED minutiae, I can safely say I'm going to take a LEED break. Please point out any errors or omissions from the above posts by leaving a comment... I hope this is helpful!