To encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life-cycle impacts. To reward project teams for selecting products from manufacturers who have verified improved environmental life-cycle impacts.
* This credit language is drawn from the LEED v4 draft. Where other point totals are noted, this pilot credit is worth 1 point in total. *
Option 2. Multi-attribute optimization (1 point)
Use products that comply with one of the criteria below for 50%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project. Products will be valued as below.
- Third party certified products that demonstrate impact reduction below industry average in at least three of the following categories are valued at 100% of their cost for credit achievement calculations.
- global warming potential (greenhouse gases), in CO2e;
- depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, in kg CFC-11;
- acidification of land and water sources, in moles H+ or kg SO2;
- eutrophication, in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate;
- formation of tropospheric ozone, in kg NOx or kg ethene; and
- depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, in MJ.
- USGBC approved program -- Products that comply with other USGBC approved multi-attribute frameworks.
For credit achievement calculation, products sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 100 miles (160 km) of the project site are valued at 200% of their base contributing cost.
Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products.
- Participate in the LEEDuser pilot credit forum
- Complete the feedback survey:
Provide a list of products purchased contributing toward credit and indicate the applicable label/certification. List the cost and number of items purchased per product and calculate the weighted value according to the table above.
- How difficult was it to locate the applicable level of labels receiving credit?
- How were you able to obtain EPD information for products? How difficult was it?
- What were the major barriers to achieving credit performance? Do you think the threshold(s) is reasonable?
- What labels would you like USGBC to consider for inclusion in this pilot credit?
- Was CEN (EN) standard 15804 available at the time you documented this credit? Was that standard applicable to your project?
- Changes as a result of 3rd Public Comment (3/1/2012):
This credit replaces Pilot Credit 43: Certified Products “EPD Pathway”
Deletion of Self declared LCA – while this is an admirable first step in product transparency, it does not depict leadership in the market. USGBC wishes to push the development of Product Category rules and their implementation.
- Changes as a result of 5th Public Comment (01/15/2013):
Credit updated to align with Building product disclosure and optimization - environmental product declarations - Option 2
- Did your project use the actual or default materials cost to determine the total materials cost?
- How did your team determine or estimate the actual materials cost? What method was used?
- Where there any challenges in determining the total materials cost? What were they?
- If applicable, how would using the actual materials cost verses the default materials cost have effected credit achievement?
Ask questions, share tips, and get notified of new forum posts by joining LEEDuser, a tool developed by BuildingGreen and supported by USGBC!
No sample form available for this credit.View all sample forms