LEED Automation Allows Third Party Companies to Integrate Directly With LEED Online

Though largely overshadowed in press by the hubbub around the Center for Green Schools launch, in my opinion the biggest news for practicing LEED APs is the relatively obscure technical development of a platform for third party companies to integrate directly with LEED-Online. The USGBC is calling it LEED Automation (official press release here), and it will hopefully result in an exponential increase in innovation in the way LEED projects are documented. After "$10 million in total investment in LEED-Online" (Chris Smith, COO of USGBC's words), many users still find it a frustrating tool (my words). "From the very start, LEED-Online was never intended to be a USGBC tool... It was intended to be a plug-and-play platform for others to build on." (Chris Smith again).

Now think about how the open iPhone and Android app markets make their phones far more useful than Apple or Google could do on their own. That is the goal of LEED Automation in a nutshell. Mike Opitz indicated that they ultimately wish to open a "USGBC App store"... In his words "The world of LEED execution just got faster, cheaper, and easier."

Where Does It Stand Today?

I'm going to profile a few projects that were used as case studies of what can be done with the data and integration capabilities that are now available.

Lorax Pro - This is a 'virtual LEED consultant' that has already been around for awhile, and one I've been meaning to profile for some time (sorry... still doing this in my spare time!). In a nutshell it's a tool to organize, schedule, and assign work to the various parties in more detail than offered by LEED-Online (e.g. your project is mapped on Google and can automatically calculate things like access to transit and community connectivity at the click of a button). Again, this has already been around for awhile, but the news here is that now their online software can translate your work DIRECTLY into LEED-Online without having to force you to pull everything down manually and re-enter data. Taken to the extreme, you could potentially mean that you'd never have to work directly in LEED-Online again!

O+M Track - Green Building Services is a consulting company has developed a tool that will be extremely helpful for those pursuing LEED-EB O+M. Basically this is a management tool for your performance periods, where a facilities manager is provided with scheduled tasks to ensure they are keeping all of their ongoing performance measurements for the life of the building, greatly facilitating recertification efforts that are needed to be performed every five years. Again, the news here is that work entered into their system can be directly loaded into your LEED-Online project, helping to reduce the overhead and costs associated with compliance.

Building Dashboard - This is a web-based software developed by Lucid Design Group that allows real-time updates of a building's performance along various metrics, largely centered around utilities. Other vendors offer similar services, and it was unclear from their presentation how this will affect those working on LEED projects today. On the other hand, if they work out directly updating these results into a LEED-EB certification/recertification similar to the GBS tool, it could mean huge reductions in overhead for those pursuing such projects.

WorkFlow Pro - is a service from GreenWizard.com that harnesses the wealth of material data embedded in their system and allows the population of those onerous MR credit templates if you build a project in their system, making the lives of specifiers and contractors that much easier.

Green Building Information Gateway - This is a pilot project led by Dr. Chris Pyke, VP of Research for USGBC in conjunction with ESRI. It is a comprehensive map of LEED projects in Chicago, but it contains a wealth of additional layers that is pulled directly from a stream of data that the USGBC is now making public. The information from any specific project is compared live against the performance of every building in the set. Basically this is a benchmarking tool designed to allow designers to show their clients how their design might stack up against others in the area. There's even a trend tool that allows you to view this data over time. It's based on a post-certification data stream, so it's applicability to those working on current projects likely won't be huge, but it could be very helpful for banks and others trying to make a business case or valuation assumptions measuring the impact of LEED certification or even individual LEED credits.

What's On the Horizon?

It's hard for me to explain how huge the potential of this. I see Trane Trace and other energy modeling software allowing direct uploads of model results into LEED without the very significant data entry headache that exists now. Revit could directly upload daylighting calculations without the architect ever having to open up a credit calculator.

Mike Opitz indicated that there's still kinks that need to be worked out, specifically citing energy modelling. At the core, there is the issue of standardizing data exchange protocols to ensure that everything is accurate, and not just easy. As energy modeling is so critical to the performance of a building, they cannot sacrifice

So What's the Catch

Well... all this innovation does not come free. In the same way that there are paid apps on the iPhone and Android marketplaces, some of the case studies above have subscription fees or other charges that will be in addition to what you're paying the GBCI for certification fees. Don't want to pay extra? You're welcome to stay with the current LEED Online, but I suspect that many firms will find that the productivity gains of these tools will far exceed the costs.

As this market get's more sophisticated, I suspect we'll see a profusion of micro-tools that may be ad supported and offered for free, but time will tell whether the development process is easy enough for such small scale tools to be worth their development costs.

I'm sorry to the other companies that demo'd their automation innovations that I did not include here... I can only type so fast! If you have a new product that harnesses this technology please don't hesitate to let me know, as this blog is all about providing readers with tools that will make their live's easier.

*FULL DISCLOSURE - GreenWizard.com is a sponsor of this site.

New Guide Provides Instructions For Setting LEED Project/Campus Boundaries

Shortly after complaining about changes about new policy documentation from the GBCI, it occurred to me that the USGBC also published a much needed updated to their Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (2010 AGMBC) that does a good job of clarifying how to document 'weird' site conditions. The previous 2005 edition did not have much guidance for how to determine LEED Campus and Project boundaries, an issue the new guide explains in easy to use terms.

If this is your campus boundary, you may want to consider downsizing it a bit

Though both documents provide guidance on how to calculate specific credits when multiple buildings on a similar site are seeking certification, I'm most interested in how to set the Project and Campus boundaries. This process is as much art as it is science, and the new guide goes so far as to say that "guidance on where to draw the LEED Campus Boundary is intentionally non-specific". This is a good thing, because boundary issues for an urban project with multiple buildings on one well-defined site are going to be different than the issues a campus may face when certifying a single building on a site where the school owns thousands of acres.

Key Issues

Project vs. Site Boundary - For 'normal' projects (I'm not sure I've worked on a 'normal' project yet!), you create a single LEED Project Boundary where all credits are calculated based on what happens within that zone. This is normally supposed to be the legal limits of the site, but many times multiple buildings will eventually be built in Multiple building or campus projects will frequently have two boundaries, a Project Boundary and a Campus Boundary.

• The Campus Boundary is normally the entire area that the owner (normally a large developer or university) owns or has control over, but in some instances it will be a subset of that property (e.g. a 'quad' of a university campus or one phase of a master development). The purpose of the campus boundary is to allow the project team to take credit for shared infrastructure (e.g. stormwater mitigation efforts, dedicated open space, structured parking) that may serve the project but is not part of the scope of the specific project seeking LEED. It may not contain areas outside of the legal control of the organization seeking certification (e.g. off-campus areas can not be included just because there's a park there that would help with an open space credit)
• The Project Boundary is contained completely within the campus boundary, and is defined as "all land that is associated with and supports normal project operations, including all land that was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project." In other words, it's the area you're actually affecting when building the specific project seeking certification. The project team has reasonable discretion in determining this boundary, and past experience has indicated that review teams will accept anything that isn't clearly 'juked' (e.g. including a sliver of a site to connect your project to a park to earn open space).

There's more to it than stated above, and I strongly suggest you and your consultants read the guide and then sit down to determine boundaries as a group to make sure all credit impacts are considered. In past projects I've worked on, stormwater mitigation and light pollution credits had the biggest influence on these boundaries, but parking, open space, and a variety of other credits could come into play as well.

I'm heading to Greenbuild 2010 today... Hope to see you there!

LEED-ND Study Examines Entire Metro Area

I've been looking at LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) in some detail lately, as evidenced by posts examining the system's fees and also my first experience planning the certification process. While I'm starting to get a feel for the system, my efforts pale in comparison to the work of Brendon Slotterback over at NetDensity.net:

Areas Meeting LEED ND Minimum Eligibility Requirements in the Twin Cities

Brendon's apparently excellent GIS mapping skills allowed him to progressively eliminate areas ineligible for LEED certification due to non-compliance with various Smart Location and Linkages category prerequisites, and the result is the chart above of eligible areas across the entire Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. You can read all of the four part series by clicking the links below or through this summary page on his website.

• Part 1: Includes a brief overview of LEED-ND and the HUD decision to begin scoring grant, and then creates a map excluding all areas in the region that do not meet wetland/floodplain avoidance, agricultural conservation, and endangered species habitat protection requirements (i.e. examines compliance with SLLp2-SLLp5).
• Part 2: Focuses almost exclusively on the SLLp1, Smart Location and Linkages prerequisite and its myriad requirements.
• Part 3: Examines areas that may technically be eligible for certification but have strong market barriers due to poor connectivity or low density in the surrounding areas.
• Part 4: Brings it all together and looks forward to zoning and policy recommendations that would help foster greater adoption of these practices in the future.

Does LEED-ND Get It Right?

I found Brendon's site via commentary from Kaid Benfield on his own blog over at the NRDC. He was particularly interested in the ability for small towns and rural areas to meet the SLL requirements, and judging by this post he feels that the system works.

These posts led to a lively discussion on a local planning list I subscribe to, where one respondent was upset that a local new urbanist community planned by DPZ, Habersham, would not qualify due to the fact that it's not an infill project surrounded by dense development. It's an excellent development internally, not far enough away from the existing town to in my opinion be considered contributing to sprawl, but it is located on a greenfield surrounded by river and marsh on one side and not much other than forests on the other. Our conversation happened to align with a visit from Steve Mouzon, author of The Original Green, who summed up the discussion well:

Currently, LEED-ND is based primarily (but not entirely) on the assumption that most meaningful interactions occur outside your neighborhood. So Pienza would fail. As would Key West. As would any number of New Urbanist places, including Habersham... LEED-ND doesn't "trust" very much that the developer will, over time, be able to capture very much interaction... LEED-ND doesn't have very good accounting of time at this time.

It’s clear to me that LEED-ND requires not only good development practices but is also fairly strict about where such development occurs. I see this as a positive but am very interested to hear your thoughts. Should Key West, a town that could literally be wiped off the map if sea level rise predictions come true, be a place that LEED-ND should foster? Should LEED-ND be more forgiving if what’s developed is significant enough to create its own town center, or should we only encourage growth of existing town centers? Please share your thoughts by leaving a comment!

Learning from the LEED-Homes Platinum 100K House

A few years ago, Chad Ludeman and Nic Darling of Postgreen embarked on a journey "to build a LEED Platinum home for $100,000 in hard construction costs." Lucky for you, they not only succeeded but documented the entire process on their popular 100K House blog!

Image credit: Postgreen

While their blog covers topics beyond the original project and is definitely a recommended read as a whole, I wanted to highlight some of the posts I found most helpful for LEED APs embarking on a LEED-Homes project... or you could just go directly to the 20 posts under the LEED category:

• To LEED or Not To LEED
• LEED Design Charrette Today
• Results of the LEED Design Charrette
• LEED for Homes Basic Process and Fees
• LEED for Homes - Home Size Adjustment Calculations
• Innovation & Design Process - LEED for Homes Review
• Construction Waste Management Recap
• LEED Landscaping Requirements

New readers may not be aware of a similar that that I profiled a over a year and a half ago (has it been that long???), The Lambert LEED Home. Know of other great LEED Homes resources that deserve attention? Let us know by leaving a comment.

SUCCESS! New Official LEED Checklists Unlocked, Added Improvements

Though the primary goal of RealLifeLEED is to better inform project managers and others involved in LEED documentation, every once in awhile I put up a rant about some topic that's bothering me in the hopes of bringing attention to something that needs to be fixed. Fortunately, it looks like the USGBC is listening, as yesterday I received a comment from Courtney Yan at USGBC explaining that:

"In response to feedback we've received from you and others, we recently updated the checklists available at usgbc.org. Revisions include the addition of d/c designations, adding a notes section and unlocking the detailed version."

The New Look Of LEED (Checklists)

While I may be appear harsh towards the USGBC/GBCI at times, I do recognize that we all share the same goal of improving the quality and reducing the environmental footprint of our built environment, and they deserve recognition for identifying a problem and working to fix it. I'll leave my previous post featuring links to checklists I created up, but I would encourage you to check out the new UNLOCKED excel checklists provided by the USGBC as well, since they've refined them even further than my editions:

• LEED-NC 2009 Checklist
• LEED-CS 2009 Checklist
• LEED-CI 2009 Checklist
• LEED-EB 2009 Checklist
• LEED-Schools 2009 Checklist

Are there other improvements you think still need to be added? Suggest them here by leaving a comment!

Special Recognition

In my last post I forgot to congratulate the winner of the mini-contest where I asked readers to identify why the hell I featured two people sipping big gulps in a post about daylighting. My new best friend and suspected hipster (single speed... check! v-neck... check! manpurse... check!) The Beastmaster, authors two blogs (one for him and one for his family) and correctly guessed that the picture featured Matt and Kim, a band best known for their single, Daylight! Congrats!

Daylighting Simulation in LEED 2009: 2 Models = Unanswered Questions

Despite the fact that I almost live on the interwebs and have a penchant for butchering images in photoshop, I'm not the most technologically advanced person when it comes to Revit and the bevy of associated environmental modeling programs available. I got an email from one of my colleagues asking how to interpret the following requirement for compliance with EQc8.1, Daylight and Views, Daylight credit using Option 1, Simulation, and I'd like your help in determining an appropriate response:

"Demonstrate through computer simulations that 75% or more of all regularly occupied spaces areas achieve daylight illuminance levels of a minimum of 25 footcandles (fc) and a maximum of 500 fc in a clear sky condition on September 21 at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m...”

The issue here is that they ask you to generate two models (one at 9am and the other at 3pm), but no guidance is provided about how to combine these models to show that 75% of the space meets the footcandle requirements...

What the hell does this image have to do with a post about daylighting compliance?*

Previous editions of LEED forced you to simulate the daylighting levels at noon, and I suspect that by using solar positions that are 'lower' in the sky more projects should be able to claim credit since daylight should penetrate more deeply into the building. The reference guide goes on to discuss other issues surrounding the simulation, but none resolve the problem brought to my attention earlier today. My reading of this leads me to two possible interpretations:

'Subtractive' Compliance

In the 'subtractive' compliance scenario, you would take the two floor plans and run the daylight intensity model for both and mark the compliant square footage on each. You would then combine the two models, and only include the spaces that are compliant on BOTH models in your calculations to determine if 75% of the overall regularly occupied space and mark your compliant square footage. The result is a combined space that is smaller than either model individually.

'Additive' Compliance

This interpretation would require you to generate the two models, but instead of cutting out the spaces that are not compliant at both times, you combine the two for a larger footprint than was created by either model.

The final word?

After I wrote 95% of this post, it occurred to me I should scan the forums for an answer, and I found a reasonably definitive answer on the LEEDuser forums**, courtesy of Jill Dalglish at Dalglish Daylighting:

"I received this statement in a response from USGBC Technical Customer Service: 'The simulation needs to document compliance at both 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.. Only areas that meet the requirements at both of these times are considered complaint.' To me, this means that you cannot take an average and you cannot evaluate the two times separately, ie. you cannot include the space in the compliant area if 75% of it meets the footcandle requirement at 9am and then also meets it at 75% at 3pm (unless that 75% overlaps.)"

This clearly supports the 'subtractive' method of compliance, but I'd love to hear from someone who has performed and submitted and had this strategy approved in a LEED review. Please share your experience by leaving a comment!

Forgive my Rant

Another sidenote to anyone at the USGBC responsible for developing the reference manuals: This is ridiculous! It's one thing that this slipped through the cracks in the first edition of the reference guide, but to also miss it in the addenda makes me want to scream... It would be one thing if it was a minor issue, but people cannot complete their documentation without this critical piece of knowledge! How is this overlooked (at least) twice?

* Free kudos and (if desired) a link to the site of your choice to the first commenter who points out what, if anything, this picture has to do with this post... Liz, you can't enter!

** FULL DISCLOSURE: LEEDuser is a sponsor of this site... I know there's been a bunch of of 'full disclosure' posts lately, and I can only offer my word that it's not by design! I really do use my sponsor's sites on a regular basis.

Online Tools for LEED Project Managers Presentation

I just finished up an education session at the USGBC South Carolina conference I mentioned previously. As I promised the attendees earlier, I've loaded the presentation online so everyone can take full advantage of the links included.

For regular readers who didn't attend, many of the links are already featured on the right side of the screen, but I did some research to find free online GBCI CE credits (a topic I'll be covering in detail in the next few weeks) and a few other resources that I haven't posted elsewhere. When I'm no longer completely exhausted, I'll likely edit this post to place all the links in one place and add a few images. Until then, enjoy!

LEED VOC Budget Calculations Explained

I stumbled onto concise but comprehensive article by Chris Dixon in Walls & Ceilings magazine called Straight Green: Alternative VOC Calculation for LEED. Basically, it walks you through the process of preparing a VOC budget (what you need to do if the contractor slips in a non-compliant paint or adhesive) as an alternative compliance measure for achieving EQc4, Low Emitting Materials credits. I could go into more detail, but instead I'll just recommend reading the article for yourself!

VOC Budget Example

This article was published in 2008, and references LEED-NCv2.2 standards, though my understanding is that the methodology should not have changed in the 2009 edition of the same system, and that it should also apply to LEED-CI, LEED-CS, and LEED-Schools systems.

via 4specs discussion forum

Why You're Not Going to Get the Extra Point(s) for WEc1, Water Efficient Landscaping

I've had an issue come up multiple times in the past few weeks that I hope in telling will prevent you from similar headaches. In multiple projects that I've been involved in, we have situations where 100% of the water used for landscaping is being supplied by non-potable sources, yet in every case we will not be earning the 2nd point (v2 rating systems) or the other 2 points (v3 rating systems) for WEc1, Water Efficient Landscaping... Why, you ask?

Read Carefully!

The issue with WEc1 is that the basic requirements listed in the rating system omit a very key statement which can only be found buried deep in the reference guides. Here I'm quoting from the LEED-NCv2.2 reference guide, but I checked and the v3 edition has the same problem:

"If the Percent Reduction of Potable Water is equal to or greater than 50%, WEc1.1 is earned."

So far, so good... nothing unexpected... but wait!

"If the Percent Reduction of Potable Water is 100%, you must also calculate the Percent Reduction of Total Water (Potable plus Reuse) according to Equation 7 […the long one where you have all the landscape coefficients and such]. If the Percent Reduction of Potable Water is 100% and the Percent reduction of Total Water is equal to or greater than 50%, WEc1.2 is earned in addition to WEc1.1.

The problem here is that the rating systems (the requirements you get to view for free) make no mention anywhere of the fact that TOTAL water use, not just potable, must be reduced by 50% along with the 100% potable water reduction in order to earn the additional point(s). It only shows up deep in the "Calculations" section of the reference guides...

If you have ample supply of non-potable water sources for a project, it is less likely that the design team has examined in detail the total water consumption of the landscaping as performing these calculations is time-consuming (read: costly).

Why this requirement isn’t stated upfront in the credit language is lost on me, but the fact remains we must not only reduce potable water use completely but also total water demand based on the LEED calculations. Had I recognized this before the latest update, I would certainly have suggested an amendment to the rating system during the public review. Let's all make an effort to correct this during public comments for the v4 rating systems!

Disagree with my interpretation? Did you slip one by a review team and get the extra points without anyone noticing? Let us know by leaving a comment!

First Look: LEED-CI 2009 Changes From Project Architect's Perspective

An Associate with FXFOWLE recently posted her experience in taking a LEED-CI v2.0 project and switching it over into a LEED-CI 2009 on Building Green's Live Blog.* This very balanced look highlights some of the changes that caused frustration, but also those that made the process easier (notably the use of the Licensed Professional Exemption... more on that later). The article doesn't cover anything, but it's definitely worth reading if you're considering a similar switch.

*Building Green is the parent company of LEEDuser.com, a sponsor of RealLifeLEED. I promise that this post has nothing to do with said sponsorship... it's really a good read!

USGBC Has Already Released 2009 Reference Guide Corrections!

Surprise! Chalk up another big FAIL for the USGBC editing department, as mere months after the initial release of the 2009 edition reference guides we have 20 pages of corrections for the BD&C guide, 21 pages of corrections for the ID&C guide, and a mere 11 pages of corrections for the EBO&M reference guide. In a suave marketing move, they've apparently decided to switch from calling these "errata" to the less error-sounding title of "addenda".

I ♥ Internet Memes

What's worse is that the announcement basically ties you into adhering to any addenda based on the date of registration. I suppose this means I'm going to have to find, download, and save these whenever I register a project?

Greenbuild Session Review: LCA into LEED

Life cycle analysis (LCA) is something that's been 'almost ready' to integrate into LEED for some time. Many expected it in the LEED v3 rollouts, but that didn't happen. This afternoon session focused on the new LEED LCA pilot credit (a system which I'll cover in more detail later, for now you can read about it straight from the horse's mouth or rely on the few tidbits I gathered below) and then here was a series of questions/comments from the floor. I apologize for the piecemeal summary you're getting below, but there was minimal presentation and too much 'discussion' that didn't really focus on the topic at hand - getting LCA into LEED. Here's what I learned:

The Basics of the LCA Credit

The pilot credit for LCA is available now, and you can read the draft here. As you might have guessed, there are about a billion issues that go into play when defining life cycle impacts of a product, and defining a system that fairly scores individual products and assemblies was/is remarkably difficult.

The current model is based on the use of the Athena Insitute Ecocalculator, largely due to the fact that they have a system ready to go now. You'll input the products used into their system, which determines the impacts (water, energy, pollution, disposal, toxicity, etc.), and the USGBC has assigned weightings to those categories that determine the scores. The ecocalculator uses an assembly system (wall, roof, floor, etc) where you input your assembly type, then the calculator uses a national average of impacts for the materials comprising that assembly to determine the score. I would suggest reading the Athena site directly if you're interested in more detailed info.

From the manufacturer's end, they have to provide specific product data (embodied energy, greenhouse gas impacts) to the Athena Institute, and then that info is folded into the assembly level data. There was substantial concern in the audience about the transparency and consistency of this process, though there are checks within the Athena Institute.

The Pilot System

"The Pilot Credit system is not currently operational at this point. The way we envisioned it is that project teams would have access to these credits and can use it if they want to." Most notably, you would get awarded a point either way even if you don't earn the point provided the documentation and an additional evaluation that the USGBC would use to modify or streamline the credit process.

Right now only the language for each official credit is online, though the USGBC has developed support materials that will be online later. "We want to give everyone as much notice as possible, and as a result we're releasing thngs in stages... Information on the submission process will be up soon".

Next Steps

Assuming the system is figured out and perfect, it's time to consider what this will replace and how it will fit in to the existing Materials and Resources credit structure. According to the panel, the most likely near term solution will be an either/or 'alternative compliance path'. LCA considers multiple attributes of sustainability all at once, where the current MR credit system focuses on single attributes (recycling, regional sourcing, etc.). In other words you can do the LCA and get 5 points (proposed) OR you could follow the existing credits (the proposal is that it will replace MRc1.1, MRc4, and MRc5) but not both. This is similiar to many compliance paths in LEED-Homes today.

Ugh... Questions

Unfortunately, the session involved a bunch of questions that didn't really clarify what it will take to incorporate this into the LEED project (i.e. the stuff you come here to learn about), and involved a series of passive aggressive comments framed as questions. It's surprising to me how much people focus on the wrong in any given system without seeing the bigger picture of creating a PRACTICAL system for measuring and scoring material impact (of course there were notable exceptions, which were already folded into the comments above).

I'm getting a beer, and anyone who saw the web session I moderated can probably understand why! A special thanks to those of you who stuck it out to the end!

LEED-Homes First Impressions... FREAKIN LOVE IT!

The firm I work at has been involved in an affordable housing project seeking LEED-Homes certification for a few months now, and until this morning I was largely uninvolved. Today though I was asked to run through the checklist and start to figure out who does what. Here's what I've learned so far:

• The LEED-Homes certification process is infinitely more user friendly than the other LEED systems. Instead of a mysterious review team located somewhere in communist Berlin, you can actually pick up a phone to work through documentation issues with your provider!
• LEED-Homes is remarkably straightforward. It's clear cut, prescriptive, and most anyone can understand the requirements without a PhD in LEEDology. I understand that homes have much more consistent issues than commercial projects that makes this possible, but that doesn't make it any less nice.
• There seems to be a great balance of design justification and in the field performance verification. I may find that as we enter into the construction phase that I may learn to hate LEED-Homes for the same reason, but we have a quality team and I don't expect that to be the case. Having a HERS rater evaluate the building as constructed in theory sounds like a much simpler way of determining relative energy performance over ASHRAE modeling.

Where would this blog be without marginally related photos?

ps... the bacon represents LEED-Homes, and I'm the cat.

Now, it's important to understand that our consultants and review team have already done a significant amount of work coordinating the design already, but from a pure documentation standpoint I can't get over how user-friendly this process is. Thanks for indulging my raves... I don't gush very often, but we need to figure out how to make the other LEED systems this simple to use while maintaining their rigor. I don't have an answer for that, but given the litany of issues I've faced recently surrounding project boundaries, I can say for sure a quick call to the review team would likely solve hours worth of headaches. Get on it guys!

New LEED MRc7, Certified Wood Credit Fair But Complex

or

How I Learned to Accept a Change from Simple Imperfection to Torturous Accuracy

Yesterday the USGBC released the 2nd draft of the proposal for a new MRc7, Certified Wood credit for LEED-NC, LEED-Schools, LEED-CI, LEED-CS, and LEED-EBOM. You may remember that this was ultimately spurred by the lumber industry's complaints about how their own certification label, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), was unfairly excluded from the LEED credit which only recognized the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) more rigorous requirements. You can view the results of a report comparing various lumber certification schemes here. The new proposal is lengthy enough that I thought a summary here, with some commentary, might be useful to you guys.

More Complexity Please

As a result the USGBC's consensus-based process for developing new standards has developed a more inclusive and equitable standard for ranking the standards called the USGBC Forest Certification Benchmark. The new approach is a sort of LEED system within LEED where if a particular forest certification standard complies with over 48 prerequisites and more than 40% of the 32 voluntary credits (sound familiar?), you may attribute the cost of those products towards your "certified wood" percentage needed to earn credit MRc7.

A sample from page 10 of the benchmark requirements

The more a particular scheme complies with with the voluntary requirements, the greater the relative value of that product you may contribute to hitting your 50% (based on cost) certified wood threshold needed to earn the credit (click here for the new LEED-NC credit draft for yourself):

Really compliant schemes now are worth 3x as they actually cost

This may all sound a bit ridiculous, but to be fair, the requirements themselves all seem make good sense and is necessary to thwart claims that the USGBC is in the back pocket of any particular certification body. By establishing a standard for standards, the USGBC can simply point out the deficiencies of any particular standard instead of (seemingly) arbitrarily accepting or rejecting individual groups. I'm by no means a sustainable forestry expert, but given the 1,800 comments received on the first draft I'd be amazed if anything substantial slipped through the cracks.

Please Follow Through With This!

"Building project teams will not be required to determine if a particular forest certification scheme meets the Benchmark’s requirements." So says the executive summary of the proposal, and I can't stress enough how important it is that the USGBC make it extremely easy for LEED APs to find out the status of one certification system over another. If I had it my way, I would only review certification schemes every two years and list all accepted schemes in the reference guide. If it's not in there tough luck, there's always LEED 2011. It's extremely important that I don't need to become an expert on the shifting forest certification system policy... All the USGBC has released on this end of the revisions is the Forest Certification Benchmark Conformance Assessment Process draft, which is a little light on details.

At a minimum, the USGBC should clearly indicate where to find a COMPLETE list of the current status of any particular forest certification system on the USGBC website, preferably on a URL that never changes. This website should be listed not just in the reference guide but also in the rating system itself.

Will my project be affected?

Though the new standard will only be required if you register a project after the date the credit is accepted (still a ways off). Once accepted though, you are permitted to use the new option in existing projects (v2009 or earlier) as an alternative compliance option.

Last Chance to Change

If you're vehemently opposed to this new system or you have some thoughts on how to improve it, you have until October 15th, 2009 to make your voice heard. Anyone can comment, not just USGBC members, but when it comes up for vote it's members only. I'm also curious to hear your thoughts hear, so please share your thoughts by leaving a comment!

Just noticed this is the 100th post!

...and we're off!!!

Real Life LEED has promised to be a blog for the LEED AP, by a LEED AP (FLAP-BLAP 4 txtrs). For this reason, I've made a policy of not pointing out every new project that earns certification, but please forgive me for announcing that I've officially sent off the first LEED project I've worked on from start to finish to the GBCI for a combined design and construction review! I'm sure that's when most LEED AP's celebrate anyway... We're expecting Gold, so wish us luck, though I've got a number of buffer points saying you won't need to!

I love the smell of green checkmarks in the morning!

I've worked on other projects in a limited role, and have sent off others for reviews, but this is the first one where my name is on the top line of all of my firm's credit submittals. Once the reviews come back, there will be a number of posts discussing some of the issues we faced in design and construction, what I learned corralling paperwork, an update on where the GBCI is falling with review delays, and proper recognition of all involved (my involvement was pretty much limited to LEED paperwork and coordination)!

Coincidently, this project was most of my test-prep for the LEEDv2.2 exam... It was registered originally as a LEED-NCv2.1 project. I was tasked with going credit by credit to determine which would shine more favorably on this particular project, a task that required me reading the reference guides for both 2.1 and 2.2 and writing summaries of the differences. That, along with the online USGBC class was pretty much what comprised my studying for the test.

In Other News

...I've once again slipped into my typical summer non-posting ways! That will change in the next few weeks as I profile some user issues with the new LEED-Online, start planning for my first Greenbuild trip, and update recommendations on how to study for the new v3 series LEED AP exams... if the USGBC's official guides would ever come out (supposedly available October 09... it was September a few weeks ago and "Summer 09" a few months ago). Stay tuned!

LEED Platinum Renovation Publishes Full Set of Documentation!

Thanks to a heads-up from Wes Sullens of StopWaste.Org, Real Life LEED is happy to announce another full set LEED NCv2.2 documentation is available online! To see links to other complete sets of documentation just click here.

Alternate Headline: StopWaste Stops Waste - Mission Accomplished!

Perhaps equally helpful is a well prepared case study that explains some of the process lessons learned and describes the systems used (they even capture the rainwater falling on the solar panels!)... There's also a great online dashboard showing updated utility use and PV generation statistics for the facility.

The only very small issue I have is that on the 6th page they claim that "As of December 2007, we are proud to announce that we're... the first LEED-NCv2.2 Platinum renovation project in the entire nation." Sorry guys, but that honor goes to my hometown outfitter shop Half-Moon Outfitters, who announced their achievement of a LEED-NCv2.2 Platinum Certification on July 16th, 2007. They took an old Piggly Wiggly turned auto-repair shop and turned that into a super-efficient distribution warehouse, maintaining pretty much all the structure.

Though I had to point that out, I don't mean to detract from the accomplishment, and as I'm sure most of you will agree about feeling grateful for these guys helping to make LEED a little easier by sharing their work. Thanks!

Know of a some project documentation online that I may have missed? Please let us know by sharing a comment... it's the only reason I found out about this, so please help out!

4 Emerging LEED Sites Worth Visiting

I'm very happy to announce that Real Life LEED is starting to get some serious competition on the interwebs. When I started this site about a year and half ago, all I could find were sites that would talk about the latest LEED projects or new green products. There was very little in the way of practical materials beyond the LEED reference guides, and we all know how complete those are...

In the past few weeks I've been contacted about and stumbled upon some very promising new players, and I suspect you'll find them useful. Without further ado...

LeedVisual.com

LEED Visual is a site based on the premise that the complex requirements of the LEED system could be better explained and understood through intuitive, diagrammatic graphics. This is a great concept, and I found some credit explanations particularly effective (e.g. the graphic explaining that you need to build above 5' above the 100 year flood plane for SSc1, Site Selection is instantly understandable, while whenever I try to explain this in classes someone inevitably asks a question about 5' below the the line...). Unfortunately, the site seems too basic at times, and there's nothing here (yet) that you couldn't otherwise find in the basic rating system documents. Also, at least one page features info that's misleading at best and wrong at worst (e.g. on the page for SSc4.1, Alternative Transporation, Public Transporation Access, the graphics suggest you're looking for stops within a half or quarter mile radius of the site, when it's actually based on walking distances).

First Take

I really like the feel of the site, and there's obviously other features (e.g a forum) that are not yet in place. Only LEED-NC seems to be supported, and there's nothing indicating that will chang. The interface is also pretty poor. You have to select credits based on their numbers without further descriptions, and since the site is in flash you can't easily bookmark or forward specific pages. I think this site as is will greatly help those studying for the LEED exam (at least the LEED BD&C version), though I suspect average reader of this site might not find anything new. I'm taking a wait and see approach for now. via core.form-ula.com

LEEDuser.com

LEEDuser is currently in beta and is being developed by the fine folks over at BuildingGreen. The basic goal is to move beyond the reference guide to provide support for LEED AP's, including samples documents and templates (e.g. OPR and BOD templates for EAp1, Fundamental Commissioning). If they did nothing other than provide those templates it would be worthwhile, though the site aims to go much further by using seasoned professionals to provide practical explanations of how to actual go about finishing the credits.

Though they plan on charging a membership fee in the future, for a limited time the site is open to all. Right now only selected credits are released, though ultimately the site is designed to support all major systems, integrate with their GreenSpec product directory, and provide a "strategies" section featuring topics such as green roofs and porous paving.

First Take

If you've been a long time reader of this site you might remember that I think these guys are top-notch, and what I've seen on the site so far gives me no reason to expect anything less from LEEDuser. It's certainly not perfect (the "Getting It Done" section in each credit could be better organized), but the fact that there even is a "Getting it Done" section lends support to the fact that they're on the track.

GreenSource Green Building Project Database

The profiles on the Green Building Project Database from GreenSource are similar to sister publication ArchRecord's Building Types Study database, but for LEED projects. Each project features photos, total costs, climate data, product info, a magazine-style narrative (go figure), and frequently a bunch of snarky, whiny comments from perfectionist architects and designers near the bottom.

First Take

Honestly there's not a whole lot that's new here (see similar EERE database), but it's always nice to have more projects to choose from. My favorite aspect of the site is are the multitude of browsing bars along the left side of the screen that are organized through conventional topics such as project size and building type and more interesting categories like annual purchased energy, carbon footprint, and climate zones. Maybe not worth checking out right away, but definitely a good place to visit when looking for ideas.

High Performing Buildings

This last site is better as a magazine than an interesting website. High Performing Buildings is an official ASHRAE publication and the website version is pretty much what you'd expect from a bunch of engineers: clunky, with a confusing interface, but featuring rock solid content. One of these issues landed on my desk a few months ago, and I've since subscribed (free to the trade). Most of the articles are in-depth profiles of a high-efficiency system installation or building component. There's nothing really specific about LEED here, but as someone trained as an architect I appreciate the easy to understand descriptions of complex mechanical and electrical systems.

First Take

I've been impressed with the features and writing here and look forward to more in the future. The website is kind of pathetic, but that's not really the point. Since this quarterly publication was first released last year, it's not like to it's too difficult to find an older article anyway. The magazine is well put together, and even though it's probably not the most eco-friendly thing to recommend I would suggest sticking with the hard copy.

Aware of a good resource I missed? Share with your friends by leaving a comment.

Defining Regularly Occupied Space: Outliers

While looking into a question about whether or not a particular fixture qualifies for task lighting (it did... I think), I stumbled upon a CIR that explained the differences between what is considered regularly occupied spaces (ROS) in a residential space vs. non-residential spaces.  That has since blossomed into me going through each applicable credit and seeing what pops up...

I decided it would be useful to summarize the ROS rulings for weird spaces here... Understand that I'm rather scant on details here, so if you have a space that sounds close to one of these below it's probably worth reading the full summary before making a final decision. Those with access can reach the CIRs here.

Get it?

In each case below, the rating system, credit, and ruling date for the applicable CIR are included for further research on your own.  In many instances, the rulings do not expressly state that some of these areas are or are not regularly occupied, but the inferences are fairly clear.  In some instances, a space may be listed both as ROS and non ROS based on very slight changes of use. I strongly recommend reading the original rulings if you think it may apply to your project!

Regularly Occupied

• Shipping and recieving warehouses in an industrial facility (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 01.18.08)
• Manufacturing floor in an industrial facility (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 01.18.08)
• Prison cells in a prison(LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 08.13.08)
• Reading/work stations for patrons at a library (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 10.22.07)
• All spaces except closets, utility rooms, other storage areas, and bathrooms in residences (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 05.12.07 and revised 10.13.07)
• Nurses stations in hospitals  (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.2 - 07.14.08)
• Rarely occupied assembly halls in army facilities (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc8.1 - 05.12.09)
• Courtrooms, holding cells, and jury deliberation rooms if no security requirements impede the ability for views in a courthouse (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc8.2 - 03.22.07)
• A greenhouse in a school where classes or groups occupy the space as part of classes (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 01.24.06) 
• Gymnasium, cafeterias, conference rooms, libraries, and staff lounges for faculty work in elementary schools (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 10.05.04)
• Circulation paths within open office environments in offices (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 06.26.01)
• "Roving scientist" desk areas used intermittantly in the California Academy of Sciences (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc8.2 - 12.21.04)
• Industrial shop in a metal piping and duct fabrication facility (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc8.2 - 08.29.03)
• Portions of warehouse space where truck receiving and unloading occurs and occupants work all day in an industrial wherehouse (LEED-CSv2.0 - EQc8.2 - 10.21.08)

Non-Regularly Occupied

• Lobbies, circulation areas, and book shelf stacks in libraries (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 10.22.07)
• Closets, utility rooms, other storage areas, and bathrooms in residences (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.1 - 05.12.07 and revised 10.13.07)
• Exam rooms and break rooms in hospitals  (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc6.2 - 07.14.08)
• Rarely occupied warehouse area when employees are assigned office space elsewhere in a warehouse (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc8.1 - 01.29.08)
• (maybe) Simulation labs in a college facility (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc8.1 - 04.20.07)
• Secure teaching labs (owner previously had issues with patent infringement) in a corporate training facility (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc8.2 - 10.21.08)
• Courtrooms, holding cells, and jury deliberation rooms if security requirements impede the ability to allow views in a courthouse (LEED-NCv2.2 - EQc8.2 - 03.22.07)
• Pick-up area/lobby for a food bank (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 08.09.06)
• Recieving/Processing area where no employees are 'stationed' in a household materials collection facilty (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 09.19.06)
• A greenhouse in a school where classes or groups do not occupy the space as part of classes in a school (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 01.24.06)
• Staff lounge if only used for short breaks and not for faculty work in an elementary school (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc6.1 - 10.05.04)
• Computer training and multi-media conference rooms in a multi-use building (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc8.2 - 05.24.04)
• Field house and competition gym in a... field house and competition gym? (LEED-NCv2.0 and 2.1 - EQc8.2 - 03.04.03)
• Sales stations where only final sales are completed (otherwise employees are on the floor with customers) in a retail store (LEED-CI - EQc6.1 - 02.24.09)

Corralling Contractors (LEED Submittals)

A recent article on the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) blog titled LEED, Specs, and the Contractor builds on a previous post I put together awhile ago.

Just try getting a VOC submittal from this guy!

I bring this up again because their post is more useful in that it contains links to a standardized Materials Credit Documentation Sheet and a sample manufacturer's claim letter that many of you could probably use. The credit documentation sheet is just a single form that you can require the contractor to fill out for each product covered under the Materials and Resources (MR) and Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) categories. This helps to make it clear what exactly is needed to show compliance with each credit, and the architect will be able to review submittals for LEED compliance without digging through a bunch of attached documents. It may be necessary to designate which "steps" (see form) apply to each product to avoid confusion and unnecessary work on the part of the contractor.

The CSI post contains more useful advice than what I've discussed here, so check it out! Also, you should thank Richard Moore of Richard Moore Environmental Consulting for making these forms publicly available.

Aware of any other tools or tips that helped your team gather the necessary documentation for these credits? Please let the world know by leaving a comment!

Getting Your S(h)ite Together: Project Boundary Definitions and LEED

I'll let you figure out how to read the title (you may want to cover your children's ears for one of them), but the following post will cover some helpful practical info I've recently learned the hard way. Basically, there are a set of figures and data that must be consistent across various LEED credits. This isn't a big problem, but it's very easy for separate trades (civil, landscaping, architect, electrical) to be working from different sets of drawings with slightly different figures. If everyone finishes their documentation with different numbers, someone is going to end up doing their work over, which is a huge annoyance and waste of every one's time.

Though the following may seem obvious for those working on simple projects, determining a site boundary gets much more complex once you add multiple buildings or on a nebulous site, i.e. a campus or master-planned development. Your boundary may end up changing over time, and it's really only important that these numbers are nailed down before everyone starts their final documentation, but at the same time I like to keep them updated so I can do back of napkin calculations over the course of the project to make sure we're on the right track and no nasty surprises emerge (e.g. "Oh yeah... we're going to need another 2 acres of open space"). Please note the proper use of both i.e. and e.g. in the above paragraph... I had to look up the usage to make sure I got it right!

The Reasonable Project Boundary's Impact

Some of you may be lucky enough to work on a clearly defined site with easy to understand boundaries. I have yet to be so lucky. Even the single buildings I'm working on seem to always be in a campus or master planned setting. As a result, there is no clear boundary and LEED allows you to determine a 'reasonable' one. More on that later... This is probably the most important item to define early on, as it will affect SSc2 (development density), SSc5.1 (protect habitat), SSc5.2 (open space), SSc6.1 and 6.2 (stormwater quantity and quality), SSc7.1 (heat island, non-roof), SSc8 (light pollution), and WEc1.1 and 1.2 (water efficient landscaping) calculations. Once the building is sited, it quickly becomes difficult to make changes. What makes it even more critical to determine is the fact that typically these credits are typically divided among four design team members: the architect, civil engineer, electrical engineer, and landscape architect. Even in the ideal world of total integrated design, at some point these folks are each going to be putting the finishing touches on the LEED documentation at their desk all alone. It's critical that if one party makes changes that the others are made aware and can adjust accordingly!

When Do I Need a Reasonable Project Boundary?

Again, if you have a single building on a "normal" site none of the following should apply to you. When the calculations call for volume and rate of stormwater leaving the site or allowable footcandles a 15 feet from the site boundary you're stuck with what you have. When your building is in the middle of a master planned development where your 'site' drains to retention facilities a block or two over and you're stuck with site lighting standards that run along the edge of your 'property' things get much more complex. Even though the stormwater is leaving the area around my building, it's not a drain (HA!) on the local infrastructure, and that lighting doesn't trespass on anyone, it's just to light a sidewalk that connects my building to one next door... Why should my project's rating be punished for good design that just happens to span large distances?

It's for issues such as these that the USGBC drafted the slightly helpful LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects(AGMBC), which provides (not enough) guidance on how you can mitigate these issues. Essentially, you're allowed expand your site boundary to include large-scale measures such as those mentioned above. I've written about a few other multiple buildings issues here

How Do I Determine a Reasonable Project Boundary?

This is where things get confusing. Though it's briefly mentioned in the AGMBC, it wasn't clear to me how this really works until I received some clarification from a VERY HELPFUL certification coordinator at the USGBC. This is in reference to a project where we have multiple buildings being certified within a larger masterplan:

Given that there are several buildings within one development you may choose to take the multi-building/campus approach when applying for particular credits, especially related to site issues. In that case you would have a larger campus/development site boundary and then separate buildings within that boundary. By following the AGMBC, it allows for these different boundaries (campus boundary vs. project boundary within campus) that may apply for different credits. The campus boundary must be consistent for all credits for which the campus boundary applies and project boundary must be consistent for all credits for which that boundary applies. It is up to the project team how to determine these boundaries for your particular projects whether by drainage plain, or some other means. However things such as open space and walkways may not be counted for more than one LEED building unless taking an aggregate approach.

As you can see, what we're really talking about here is TWO boundaries... one for the campus and one for the project. Before I tell you what we're doing in this regard, it's very important that I tell you that they have not yet been approved as correct by the USGBC review team at this point. I will be sure to update this post when that happens.

This picture is meaningless, but it looks like an upside-down man and I figured... What the hell? There's too much text in this post anyway.

We decided that instead of using the entire development as our campus boundary, the area that feeds into a set of retention ponds would mark our campus, as that completely contains the all of the buildings that are seeking certification. As such, the stormwater documentation for all buildings will be identical. On one edge we extended the boundary to include some of the lighting we are installing along road that our buildings front. If we used the stormwater boundary one or two lights (out of many) would 'trespass' onto the adjacent site, but since it's still all internal to the larger development I don't feel guilty. On the whole, it's still a responsible development. The only reason we didn't set the whole development as the campus boundary is because it would be difficult to pull complete stormwater data for everything. Our engineers were doing calculations on the area we've included already.

Our project boundaries were determined by the amount of open space needed to satisfy requirements for each building. I can hear many of you thinking about what a sham this is... that we're just setting boundaries in a point-mongering mentality. Though in a literal sense you're technically correct, it's important to note that the vast majority of the area surrounding our buildings is vegetated open space, a feat that was accomplished through the use of multi-story structured parking (at great expense to the owner) in an area that is generally characterized by large swaths of surface parking. Again, we have met the intent of the credit, and I feel that on the whole we're well within our rights to claim the space.

To get to this point took a lot of back and forth between civil engineers, electrical engineers, and the project architect. We had to set a boundary, examine it from all sides, and reset the rest to that which is the best fit. Where on a 'normal' project I would suggest that materials selection and procurement is going to be your most frustrating task, on multiple buildings projects it's clearly these site issues that get to be a hassle. We've known all along that we're doing the right thing, it's just a matter of putting it in an acceptable framework to meet the credit requirements.

Working on other projects has made me realize that how you determine these boundaries will be driven by different factors for different situations. PLEASE share your experiences with the world by leaving a comment!