LEED for homes 2012 - GreenHome Institute

It is important that all residential stakeholders comment on the proposed changes to the LEED for Homes rating system. This is your chance to shape the LEED rating system, which is traditionally voted on by a predominantly commercial group. needs you to give feedback and help USGBC balance the need for progress with the realities of implementation to keep this a relevant rating system. These changes are currently slated to take effect in the Fall of 2012. has highlighted specific issues that need your input below:

What version of Energy Star should be used?

Energy Star Version 3 (ESV3) is currently proposed as a perquisite in the LEED 2012 rating system. is concerned that Energy Star Version 3 will cost projects roughly $7,000 more to implement and will not be cost effective. recommends that LEED 2012 use the HERS score as an alternative compliance path for the performance path in EA prerequisites, and reward extra points to those pursing ESV3. Energy Star Version 2 will still be the standard until LEED 2012 goes into full effect, despite Energy Star changes on 1/1/12.

What about LEED for existing homes?

The requirements for ESV3 effectively eliminate any existing home gut rehab projects from obtaining Energy Star certification. If LEED 2012 requires ESV3, then no existing homes will be eligible for LEED certification.

We Need Your Support

encourages all who have interest in residential Green Building to comment on these changes by praising valid changes but also giving constructive criticism to measures that are not feasible in the market. USGBC will take into account strong, defensible, constructive comments that are reinforced with suggestions on exactly how the LEED Rating System should develop.

Below are several links to websites with details on the proposed rating system. We encourage you to review a summary of or the complete details for LEED for Homes 2012 changes. There is a 2012 LEED Webcast to get more information and have your questions answered by USGBC staff. After learning about all the proposed changes, please comment on each credit that is of concern to you.

Update Sept 10th. Other issues included:

1. General
Remove commercial structure and language. Align more closely with familiar LH 2008 structure and language.
Justification: additional complexity will result in a major loss of support infrastructure, and established project teams.

2. LT 5-9
Substantially reduce total number of LT points (i.e., reduce bias towards urban projects; enable more points for non-urban projects)
Justification:80% of new homes are built in non-urban areas. Only 1/3 of completed LH 2008 projects achieved any density credits.

3. EA p1 (EA c1)
Energy performance level should be substantially relaxed for entry level projects (especially market-rate average and large sized homes). Special consideration is needed to address the extremely weak participation (so far) from market rate housing.
Justification:Substantial growth in program will only be achieved if the entry level is defined at a performance level that the market-rate projects consider viable (i.e., cost effective).

4. EA p1: ESH v3
For Prereq, roughly align with ESH v3 only in terms of HERS performance level (i.e. exclude checklists). IMPORTANT: Make this both a prereq AND worth approx 10 EA points. (Note ESH v3 performance levels are not that different from energy performance levels of LH 2008 certified homes.)
Justification:Substantial parts of country will not be able to achieve ESH v3 requirements, partly due to complete void of trained HVAC infrastructure.

5. EA c1: LEED Index (MMBtu)
This proposed energy metric is confusing, complex, unproven, and not implementable (no standards and/or guidelines exist).
Justification:The market has not tolerance for additional complexity. Recent changes in Codes and ESH have overwhelmed the marketplace. Further, it is unprecedented for USGBC to create new national standards, rather than to adopt industry-developed/proven standards.

6. WE c1 (WE c2, WE c3)
Align WE performance and prescriptive path (same # of points in each pathway) – both indoor and outdoor.
Justification:The Prescriptive pathway provides a vital educational component to the LH Rating System – for new green residential projects. These projects are typically unfamiliar with green strategies and upgrade measures. They need to be explicitly in the LHRS.

Public Comment will close on September 14^th 2011.

LEED 2012 Homes Webcast Register for the LEED 2012 2nd Public Comment Introduction Webcasts. Free for members!

LEED 2012 Homes Rating System Drafts
Clean Version
Redline Revision Example Version

Summary of Changes
1st PC to 2nd PC
2008 to LEED 2012 2nd PC

LEED 2012 Scorecards
Homes
Homes Mid-Rise

Public Comment
Submit comments on any of the LEED 2012 2nd Public Comment Drafts

Download & Share the official PDF

LEED for Homes has always required ENERGY STAR (a HERS rating of 85) as a prerequisite, and rewarded increasingly low HERS ratings with more points in the rating system. However, significant changes in the next iteration of the rating system (LEED 2012) will be even more performance-oriented, which should play well to Passive House customers. Especially those customers who want not only energy-efficient performance and good IAQ, but also those that want to go beyond and incorporate broader aspects of sustainability into their homes. This is where Passive House and LEED become intertwined.

A recent project in MN demonstrates how LEED and Passive House currently work together. But with the ENERGY STAR v3 changes that went into effect January 1, LEED proposes to have a “target index” based on an “absolute energy metric”, representing the maximum amount of energy a home can use. The thought is that this would:

• Better reward envelope / component improvement and design decisions.
• Factor in permanently installed plug loads not figured into a HERS rating such as driveway /swimming pool / spa heating, permanently installed appliances, and more.
• Large homes will no longer be able to “buy” their way into a lower HERS rating with solar photovoltaic / wind energy systems.
• Allows a clearer comparison between New construction and Existing construction.

This represents a mind-shift in the way that USGBC wants the industry to think about residential energy, focusing on total energy consumed, for example, on a BTU per square foot basis. This metric works well with Passive House, which is also a performance-driven standard that focuses on a similar metric. In the United States, a house built to the Passive House standard results in a building that requires space heating energy of 1 BTU per square foot per heating degree day, compared with about 5 to 15 BTUs per square foot per heating degree day for a similar building built to meet the 2003 Model Energy Efficiency Code.

Question to the group: What are your thoughts on this? If you noticed, there is a LOT of conditional language above. The reason is that right now, the rating system is open for public comment until Dec 31, 2010. Here is a blog I wrote with more details.

So, what does this mean for Passive House? Well, if you or anyone else has a vested interest in Passive House and want to shape the future of how the program works together with LEED, we encourage you to voice your opinions. We also have a great summary of the changes to LEED for Homes.

Finally, for more details on the metric, look at the end of the rating system under Glossary. The “LEED MmBTu Metric” definition provides additional information.

We welcome informal comments below.

Become A Member

Contact