We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) announced that a fifth
public comment period on proposed updates to the LEED (Leadership
and Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating systems
will run from October 2, 2012, to December 10, 2012, with
submission of the proposed changes to a vote by the USGBC
membership scheduled for June 1, 2013.
As noted in a prior blog post, LEED v4 was previously known as LEED
2012. LEED 2012 had been scheduled for a vote in June
2012, with a launch to take place by the end of the year.
However, balloting was deferred first to August 15, 2012, and then
to June 1, 2013. In announcing the delay, the USGBC
President commented that "we have heard repeatedly that while
our community continues to fully embrace our mission, they need
more time to absorb the changes we're proposing and to get
their businesses ready to take the step with us."
The USGBC website summarizes the anticipated changes as
follows:
New market sectors: data centers, warehouses
and distribution centers, hospitality facilities (i.e.
hotels), existing schools
and existing retail, and LEED for Homes Mid-Rise.
Increased technical rigor: revisions to credit
weights, new credit categories focusing on integrated design, life
cycle analysis of materials, and an increased emphasis on
measurement and performance.
Streamlined services: An improved LEED user
experience that makes the LEED Online platform more intuitive and
introduces tools to make the LEED documentation process
more efficient.
Thirty-seven credits are up for comment, including several
relating to "Building Product Disclosure and
Optimization" that are characterized as "major
changes." Some of the materials credits
have been particularly controversial. There will
undoubtedly be a number of public comments.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
