Rating System

LEED BD+C: New Construction

Rating System Version

v2 - LEED 2.2, v2 - LEED 2.1, v2 - LEED 2.0

Inquiry

The LEED Reference Guides for NC v2.0 and v2.2 linked MR Credits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 together. Recycled content materials are not allowed to be claimed as rapidly renewable (MR Credit 6) products. Reused resources such as barn wood which has been reprocessed into flooring can also be considered as containing recycled content. In the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide, the linking of these credits is no longer mentioned. In essence, LEED-NC v2.0 and v2.1 seem to have created a gaming system out of MR Credits 3, 4, 6 and 7. By claiming wood with recycled content under MR Credit 4, it can be removed from MR Credit 7 calculations, even though MR Credit 7 implies that all wood must be included in its calculations. This creates a way to hide a material from another credit. A project which finds itself burdened by achieving a very high percentage for one of the credits, for example resource reuse, can shift materials which are also considered recycled content over to MR Credit 4. This would increase the percentage level of one credit while reducing the level of another. Linking MR Credits 3, 4, 6 and 7 together seems counterproductive to the intent of LEED and the future goal of integrating Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) into the materials credits. LCA does allow multiple material benefits to be claimed simultaneously. Why is LEED so set against this for NC v2.0 and v2.1? By the way, stating the reason for not allowing multiple claims is that LEED does not allow double dipping would be a false statement. Materials claimed as recycled content can also be claimed as locally manufactured (MRc5). Composite wood boards claimed under MR Credits 6 or 7 can also be included in the EQ credit for low-emitting materials (EQc4.4). Multiple claims for a single product can be made. Please reconsider why MR Credits 3, 4, 6 and 7 are linked together. Can multiple benefits be used across the credits to take into account the LCA process? Or, does shifting materials into around the credits, and potentially hiding them from credits they would burden really what the USGBC wants projects to do just to earn LEED points?