When it comes to actually knowing things about sustainable real estate and such, Steve's the heavy hitter. (I'm the guy who buries YouTube links to Fleetwood Mac performances in otherwise dutiful posts) SDP also has an actual job and is doing all the writing at Green Real Estate Law Journal, though, which means that it falls on me to comment on a pair of recent reports that bring both good and not-so-good news to the USGBC's LEED rating program. For all its faults -- and we'll get to those below -- LEED remains the best-branded, most-recognizable way of telling a green building from, like, a beige or brown one. The good news is that, per a recent study by the Urban Green Council, building to LEED specs has proven to be roughly as expensive as building brown. (Eww on the "building brown," by the way, sorry) The bad news is that, once again, building to LEED specs has been revealed as not necessarily being as green as it seems.
The good news, then. The Urban Green Council's study, "Cost of Green in NYC," surveyed 107 properties throughout 2008, of which 63 -- 38 multi-family high-rises and 25 commercial interiors -- were pursuing LEED certification. While the results will likely be more surprising to people who don't already spend a lot of time reading about this, the study found that, in the words of Globe Street's Paul Bubny, "the cost premium on building green has all but disappeared." Construction costs in the LEED high-rises came out to around $440 per square foot, while the non-green group averaged $436 per square foot -- a difference of just one percent -- while the cost of LEED commercial interiors was actually six percent lower per square foot, $191 per square foot compared to $206. If we can take as a given that perceived cost issues are what has slowed the adoption of green building practices in New York -- and I'll take that explanation over raw laziness or some secret love for, like, half-toxic finishes -- then it qualifies as very good news to see that particular canard getting roasted. Another recent study, though, poses a more troublesome question -- even if LEED-certified buildings cost essentially the same as non-LEED buildings, how much does that matter if LEED structures don't actually perform to a higher standard?
This isn't necessarily the first time that LEED has come under fire for being more impressive as a brand than a metric, and Steve has already discussed the hazards of LEED's bestriding-colossus status in the green-certification game in his posts on "LEED Creep." That study comes courtesy of the (passive construction alert!) National Research Council of Canda's Institute for Research in Construction, which found that LEED certified buildings do not, on balance, perform more efficiently than non-LEED structures, and in many instances actually consume more energy. Furthermore, the correlation between a building's LEED certification level (platinum, silver, molybdenum, whatever) and its relative energy efficiency was found to be notably weak. Again, this is probably bigger news to me than it is to gbNYC's founder/publisher/magus-in-chief, but I found them interesting in the context of Jacob Gordon's brief, blistering piece on LEED in (the pretty excellent) Good Magazine.
The essence of Gordon's argument is that, because LEED ratings are granted on pre-construction promises, many of those LEED Gold plaques wind up conferring credibility (and PR advantages) to buildings that often prove undeserving once they move from computer screen to skyline. "Because LEED buildings don’t have to perform up to spec in real life," Gordon writes, "LEED has contributed to a trend of showboating and point scrounging, leaving energy efficiency—arguably the most important metric—lost in the shuffle." Gordon favors Germany's Passivhaus/Passive House standards -- which are just beginning to make their presence felt in the US -- and the EPA's far more stringent (and weirdly obscure) Energy Star rating system, but applauds the USGBC's belated-but-welcome requirement that developers provide water and energy usage data over the first five years of a building's life in order to keep the plaque their worthy plans have earned. It's a step in the right direction, obviously, but also a reminder of just how much closer we are to the beginning of this particular journey than we are to the end.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Comments
LEED status should be granted after construction
I agree with this completely. LEED status should be granted AFTER construction.
Didn't they also change the requirements for a person to become LEED certified this year? There's a lot going on over there.
Kind of baffling, I agree
As I keep mentioning, I'm still sort of figuring this field out, but the order-of-operations on the LEED thing has always been sort of confusing to me; EnergyStar seems so much more useful (and stringent) that I wonder why LEED has become the dominant brand in the field. I don't know much about Passivhaus -- that Good Magazine piece was the first I'd heard of it -- but it sounds promising, and I'm going to keep an eye on it. Also, while it's easy to bash them (even I can do it!), LEED's late-in-the-game shift towards post-construction monitoring at least suggests that they're aware something is wrong.
I don't know much about LEED for Human People certification shifts, but I'm sure Steve can help you there.
Leed and Energy
I am not sure LEED was originally intended to just deal with energy efficiency like Energy Star. The issue is that LEED has become a synonym for sustainable and energy efficient. For this reason, LEED is easily attacked from this angle.
LEED and performance: Need for clarity
The ongoing public conversation about LEED (including over at Good Magazine) is in many ways a wonderful example of solving problems through discourse. However, we consistently miss several critical points:
1)There are multiple types of LEED ratings. The new construction ratings are the subject of scrutiny. LEED Existing Buildings / Operations & Maintenance *uses* ENERGY STAR as its performance measurement system. Energy performance approximately the same as ENERGY STAR is a prerequisite of EB O&M.
2) For new buildings, LEED doesn't prescribe some off-beat or half-baked alternate energy-design methodology; it requires the use of industry-standard ASHRAE 90.1 (or the more stringent Title 24 energy standards in California). If LEED buildings aren't beating the ENERGY STAR performance levels in operation, the question of how to ensure a new building will perform well applies just as much to the entire building stock as to LEED buildings. (And for those ready to drop a pithy bomb about energy codes not working, uh-uh. Per capita energy use in California has remained constant for the past 30 years, while homes have expanded and per capita energy use in the US as a whole has increased more than 60%. Codes and performance standards based on energy models aren't perfect in individual buildings, but they do work at scale.)
3) In 2007, USGBC began requiring LEED new construction buildings to earn at least 2 energy points (i.e. it's mandatory to design a new LEED building to outperform ASHRAE 90.1 by at least 14%.) Before that, design for energy performance was optional, just like most points in the system. Data for the NBI and follow-up study were collected in 2007. USGBC's belated decision to require design for energy efficiency came after the cohort of buildings in the NBI were built and operating for years. The NBI study underscores that USGBC was moving in the right direction to begin requiring design for beyond-code energy efficiency beyond code.
4) Carbon is critical. Frequently maligned LEED credits like one for bike racks & showers miss the point. Commuting to and from commercial buildings typically represents carbon emissions two times greater than the operation of the building itself. That cheap, humble bike rack, combined with policies and other infrastructure to use it, can be a far more cost-effective carbon reduction measure than a dazzlingly miserly lighting controls package. Improved energy performance in the building is critical, but so is having a 'big picture' that sustainability - even the biggest looming issue - is about more than just the energy used to operate the building. Water and material conservation similarly have embedded energy (and hence carbon) savings. We can't solve our problems by managing our utility bills alone.
5) LEED has succeeded by being practical, achievable, and flexible. ENERGY STAR has succeeded by being practical. Building them both up, and improving them by asking hard questions, helps us all. Unproductively venting about one or the other does not.
USGBC and LEED aren't perfect, but they have changed the discussion from "I can't do that hippie green stuff because it's too expensive," to "How can I get a better building and better value?" Continuing to ask the latter question - and adjusting course appropriately and at scale - is necessary.
LEED GA, LEED Building Performance
Nice work here, David. As far as the change in LEED accreditation for professionals, Brian Wennersten of SkyedECO Education wrote a great piece describing the new requirements which was somehow lost during our switchover to the new gbNYC back in June. We're trying to get that article back on line.
Barry, this is an excellent summary of a lot of the issues we've been dealing with recently over at GRELJ (http://www.greenrealestatelaw.com) and I'd encourage you to head on over there to check us out. We've also dissected the somewhat suspect conclusions of the NBI study, which is coming under increasing fire. I'd also suggest to all of you that Energy Star will be the next program which commentators take a more critical look at.
Brand LEED
While there has been much written here and elsewhere about LEED certified projects and actual building performance, there are other areas where the USGBC (and the CaGBC in Canada) must demonstrate some conviction to defend the brand. They are: individual accreditation, the growing number of LEED registered projects that aren’t being certified, and irrelevant material credits.
The just released NIBS “Report on Building Rating and Certification in the U.S. Building Community” repeats widespread concerns over individual accreditation. NIBS’ authors state that “accreditation systems appear to certify expertise in applying the program more than improving the actual building’s performance”, and suggest that professional licensing bodies should be responsible for these requirements.
In Canada, more than half and likely as many as two-thirds of LEED registered projects are not proceeding towards certification. Hundreds of registered projects have been abandoned, postponed, certification was cut out of their budget, or it was never the intent to certify (the “LEED-lite” phenomenon). Nevertheless, they represent a Trojan Horse because the number of LEED registrations are endlessly cited as an indicator of growth (and the USGBC uses Canadian registrations in their summary reports).
Finally, the least used LEED category are its material credits. And the reasons are obvious - no link has been demonstrated between their arbitrary selection and climate change mitigation, proven LCA results or responsible purchasing. This has to change, or the credits should be scrapped.
NIBS
Thanks, Marshall, we wrote about the NIBS report over at GRELJ where there is a link to the document in full:
http://www.greenrealestatelaw.com/2009/10/nibs-report-identifies-risk-an...
free webinar by LEED founder this Thursday
Hi,
Thanks so much for your blog. I am writing to invite you to a free sneak-preview webinar on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 12:30pm EST about green commercial building by Robert Watson, the “Father of LEED” called “Building a Sustainable Future: Progress & Trends Toward Improving the Environmental Footprint of Commercial Buildings”: http://bit.ly/GreenBuilding_Webinar_Nov5
In these fast-changing times it is imperative we have measurement around whether green building choices both provide a very high return on investment and a significant decrease in our environmental impact. This webinar effectively demonstrates LEED certified green building accomplishes these goals while outlining next steps for LEED certification to further contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of buildings in the U.S. and worldwide.
During this 60 minute webinar a sneak-preview of the Green Building Market & Impact Report will be presented by the report’s author Robert Watson, GreenerBuildings.com Editor and industry leader. This report is an integrated assessment of the land, water, energy, material and indoor environmental impacts of the LEED for New Construction (LEED NC), Core & Shell (LEED CS) and Existing Building (LEED EB) standards.
JohnsonDiversey President & CEO Ed Lonergan will also highlight the importance of sustainability in today’s business environment, offering insights and examples of the company’s work toward improving the sustainability of its customers’ facilities as well as its own. This presentation will detail JohnsonDiversey’s own focus on LEED certification for many of its facilities worldwide.
Please visit http://bit.ly/GreenBuilding_Webinar_Nov5 for more information or to sign up. I would love your help spreading the word! It would be great if you could blog about the webinar and provide the signup URL before next Thursday. Also please forward this message to anyone you think would be interested in learning more about LEED certification and green commercial building. If you have a Facebook or Twitter account please also mention the conference there! There are some embeddable banners, a widget that includes Robert Watson’s Twitter feed, and other assets here: www.influencexchange.com/greenbuilding
I look forward to connecting with you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask!
Thanks,
Amy
Post new comment