LEED v4.1

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 322 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 10:51 am:    I just learned that there is a LEED v4.1, apparently available as an option to v4.0. MasterSpec does not include a Div 01 section explicitly for v4.1, so I assume the section for v4.0 can be used. Does anyone know or have experience w/ this? According to the LEED consultant on the project, v4.1 has lower thresholds for compliance w/ MR credits, making it easier to find products to obtain credits. My guess is that the spec requirements might not change: Disclosure forms will be req'd as usual, but the availability of compliant products may be broader. Confirmation, insights or other experience w/ this issue would be appreciated. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Rosa Cheney Senior Member Username: rdcaia Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2018 Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 11:22 am:    Yes, I would suggest starting with the Div 01 section for LEED v4 and altering it for v4.1. For Commercial Interiors, some of the MR thresholds were reduced (10 products instead of 20 previously), and in some cases the weighted-values of a product were increased or changed (the credits associated with EPDs and HPDs for example). But in one case (Sourcing of Raw Materials), they removed one of the possible credit options and changed the remaining option to allow for more points which means there is a change in the possible thresholds to be achieved. For Low-Emitting Materials, v4.1 gives you more points for achieving the same number of 'categories' as v4 did, but the actual requirements did get more stringent, so I'm not sure that is actually 'easier'. I could be wrong, but I believe the LEED v4.1 credits for New Construction are still in beta. And I also believe some of the ways they made LEED v4.1 'easier' for Commercial Interiors are not included in New Construction v4.1, since I understand the thresholds were reduced on the Commercial Interiors projects due to the fact that those projects may be smaller and not have the opportunity to have as many products selected to meet the previous "minimum 20 products" criteria. Anyhow, my advice would be to get the actual LEED v4.1 language from USGBC's website or your LEED consultant, and work through the revised credits individually. But to answer your question, yes, a LEED v4 master would be a good place to start since the v4.1 changes would be edits to that and not a completely new system. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 559 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 12:08 pm:    I have forwarded to Camp our Sustainability writer. 4.1 is coming out of beta (or already has) we are working on adding this to our sustainability database this next year (ASAP). of course ASAP may sill be well into the year. so no promise for a "january" release Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 12:21 pm:    I disagree with Rosa's assessment of the low-emitting materials credit. I do agree that you can get more points for similar number of categories. 4.0 required you meet all available categories to get 3 points, 4.1 allows you to meet 4 out of 8 available categories to get the same number of points, and they also offer additional credit for exemplary performance if you go beyond 4. Where I differ from Rosa's assessment is that I think the actual requirements got less stringent in 4.1 compared to 4.0. Instead of needing to meet 90% threshold of paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants by volume for emissions evaluations ... you only need to meet 75% by volume or by surface area under 4.1. Not only is the threshold lower, but calculating compliance can be done without knowing the volume of the material that was used. Calculating by surface area simplifies things for the designer to allow them to estimate compliance before the contractor applies the products. Additionally, the thresholds for flooring and composite wood went from 100% under 4.0 to 90% and 75% respectively under 4.1 ... they also allow calculation by cost or surface area. They also broke out the ceilings, walls, thermal, and acoustical insulation from one combined category into separate individual categories while also reducing the compliance threshold from 100% to 75% for wall panels, 90% for ceilings, and 75% for insulation. This means that you can pick and choose whether it makes sense to pursue these categories individually rather than needing to meet all of them to get extra credits. Finally compliance for furniture decreased from 90% in 4.0 to 75% in 4.1. The language for this credit in 4.1 appears identical between BD+C and ID+C. Under 4.0 the thresholds where the same between BD+C and ID+C, but the number of categories and their points varied on whether furniture was included or not (always included for ID+C projects) and whether it was a school or healthcare project. This no longer is the case under current 4.1 language, greatly simplifying the complexity. Some fine print issues: It is true that the referenced emission standards changed between 4.0 and 4.1. There might be significantly less manufacturers that have tested to the more recent version of an evaluation standard, or have formulated to meet lower VOC thresholds. Pursing a project under 4.1 means this might be harder to achieve. However, if you are pursuing under 4.0 and choosing to pursue credits in 4.1 via the credit substitution option, USGBC has allowed compliance via the referenced standards in 4.0. https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10495 Rosa Cheney Senior Member Username: rdcaia Post Number: 8 Registered: 07-2018 Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 01:18 pm:    The reason I say low-emitting for v4.1 is not necessarily easier, is that the new VOC Emission Evaluation criteria is CDPH v1.2-2017 compared to CDPH v1.1-2010 required under v4. The v4.1 standard is more stringent, and as I understand it, many products (outside of those used in California) will not yet have the documentation you need to show they meet CDPH v1.2. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 370 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 01:40 pm:    Rosa is correct, especially about the CDPH versions. As usual, USGBC has made this transition more complicated than it needed to be. The rules for if you are registered as v4 but pursuing v4.1 are different than if you are registered as v4.1. And BD+C is different from ID+C is different from C+S, etc... I recommend you make your sustainability consultant do some work here. Have them send you the scorecard (with correct registration) and indicate what products are required to meet which credits. In addition to Division 01, you'll need to update your LEED submittal forms to indicate the new criteria, specific to your project. I'll be working on our LEED submittal form next week, with my colleagues here in Boston. I'll post it to our Kalin Associates website when it's ready. - Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 11:41 am:    Seeing that USGBC allows substitution of any 4.0 credit with the corresponding 4.1 credit, what incentive would there be to pursue a straight 4.1 project at this point? Rosa brings up a good point, but until USGBC disallows the interpretation, or until they disallow credit substitution, it seems like a pretty good option to use the 4.1 low-emitting materials credit in a 4.0 project and get the easier compliance options with the older, less stringent, more widely tested standards. TL,DR version: USGBC allows you to register under 4.0 and pick demonstrably easier credit options from 4.1. I recommend using that to your projects' advantage for as long as you can. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 323 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 12:25 pm:    Useful suggestions -- thank you all. The approach suggested in the last Guest post is the method being used for the project I'm working on. Hopefully, that will involve minimal changes to standard MasterSpec provisions. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA