4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

LEED V3.0 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Sustainable Design Topics » LEED V3.0 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: melissaaguiar

Post Number: 128
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 11:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

How many of my fellow specifiers have used LEED V3.0 for projects as of yet?
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob

Post Number: 37
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 11:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

We've started setting up our office master for LEED v3.0, but have only begun a few projects. I have just had a few clients discover that USGBC will discontinue online access for version 2 series after December 2009. They want to know how much work will be involved in switching their documents. I want to know too. Has anyone changed a project midstream yet?
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy

Post Number: 227
Registered: 06-2005

Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 01:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

We have many in progress that were already registered under 2.2 before the deadline, but I am doing one now that is in the 2009 LEED for Schools flavor of v3.0. Interesting how they have combined systems. So far I like it better. Seems like the general concepts do not change all that much between versions. The numbers of points for credit levels are significantly different, and some of the nuts and bolts are different. Regionalization credits are a new twist. Here is a good summary of changes in 2009: http://www.reallifeleed.com/2008/05/regionalization-public-comments-and.html, and a more comprehensive look here: http://www.reallifeleed.com/2009/03/new-leed-2009-reference-guides-big.html

I have been developing a template for credit requirements to insert in technical sections in lieu of or in addition to that of Masterspec (mostly MR and EA credits, and SS for roofing). I'm beginning to refer to credits by name and avoiding too much specifics on credit numbers. It seems unfortunate that Masterspec goes to the extent of duplicating in so many technical sections what level of recycled content or regional materials the project requires (MR 4.1[ and Credit MR 4.2], etc.) How about just MR 4, and letting Division 01 be the only place to revise if the strategy changes midstream from 10% to 20% recycled? This approach has helped a lot already.

Due to changes between LEED versions and systems, I'm thinking of going a step further, by not using the credit number at all. Just saying LEED... Recycled Content..., and referencing Division 01. Of course I will also say the minimum % for a material if it is determined in design, or mandated by EPA CPG.
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joelmckellar

Post Number: 41
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 03:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Just to clarify Lisa's comments... USGBC is only discontinuing LEED-NCv2.0 projects, not other version 2.0's or LEED-NCv2.1 or LEED-NCv2.2.

From the blog I have heard a comment from one person who switched and wasn't terribly impressed, but I don't have any first hand experience.

thanks for the plug chris!
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 1119
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If one has registered a project under one of the prior versions, I don't believe you will be required to switch it over, and thus, can't imaging you'd lose access to version 2 templates.
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob

Post Number: 39
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 09:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Chris, my client thinks they are also discontinuing access to CI 2.0 and CI for Retail. I haven't contacted USGBC or GBCI or EIEIO for confirmation. It's inevitable, and we get more fee to make the switch midstream.

John, you'd think they wouldn't discontinue access to grandfathered programs, wouldn't you? But we're not making the rules here. More programs equals more fees and more required education seminars and more reference guides and etc... Maybe we should start John and Lisa's Green Building Program.
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joelmckellar

Post Number: 44
Registered: 02-2006

Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 10:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Lisa, I believe your client is misinformed.

LEED-CI for Retail hasn't even been released yet (it's in pilot), so I don't see how they can discontinue access to it. See below:

I assure you, the only system that is being retired at this time is LEED-NC v 2.0. You can upgrade a NCv2.0 project to a more current system for free. See this page at the GBCI for more info:

Though it's not the best thing in the world that they're retiring this system, the last available registration for LEED-NCv2.0 was over 6 years ago. There have been three system updates since then. Though I know projects can take a long time from start to finish, it costs money to maintain a team of reviewers across four versions of a rating system. For more information on rating system sunset dates, check out this page:
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob

Post Number: 40
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 10:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Joel, Thanks for your research! Imagine that, I have a misinformed client, shocking. And I listened to them. I'm so embarrassed.
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joelmckellar

Post Number: 45
Registered: 02-2006

Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 10:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Don't be... I searched and searched for this information on the USGBC site last night only to run into it by chance on the GBCI site this morning!

In my opinion, the USGBC is terrible at maintaining a central information site for the many issues surrounding LEED (hence my blog!).
David Oglesby (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, April 09, 2010 - 10:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Has anyone out there created a Section comparable to MasterSpec 01 81 13 - SUSTAINABLE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS that applies to LEED for Homes Version 2008 they migh share? Short format desireable but long form is fine.

My log in is not working so this may come up anonymous
David Oglesby, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza

Post Number: 429
Registered: 12-2002

Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 07:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

One difference in LEED definitions that MasterSpec has built into LEED for Schools that we should all be careful of is the treatment of IEQ Cr 4 with respect to shop applied primers, adhesives, and sealants. Under NC, these were not an issue - they were applied offsite so didn't "count". Not so under LEED for Schools, which references the California DHS standards. CA standards evidently recognize that shop applied primers off gas VOCs for a significant amount of time after application, and so want them to comply with VOC limits. However, USGBC apparently is allowing use of LEED NC treatment of this issue in LEED for Schools projects, perhaps due to the newness of this requirement, or the lack of testing of materials for CA DHS compliance.

Anyone know more about this issue?
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob

Post Number: 67
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2010 - 09:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I checked with one of our local LEED consultants, The Green Engineer (who is active w USGBC committees), for a recent project going LEED for Schools. We're in Boston, and I suspect that many manufacturers have not been tested for CA DHS compliance. He tells me that most LEED for Schools projects are still submitting under the LEED NC option for IEQ Cr 4. So, I'm putting both requirements in my specification sections for now.

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration