I wrote the following as part of an e-newsletter called the Green Building Alert, which came out yesterday. The feedback has been terrific - stories about buildings that outperformed projections, conspiracy theories about USGBC's evil ways, and solid, well-reasoned arguments for why ongoing measurement and verification needs to be a prerequisite for LEED certification - and soon. So I figured I'd post the e-newsletter here too to see what the MyFN community has to say. Comment at will!
First, the untruth: Your LEED certification will be revoked if your energy performance falls a few percentage points below what you initially modeled (and earned points) for. USGBC took one on the chin a few weeks ago with this NY Times piece about how some LEED-certified buildings may not be quite as efficient as originally thought. Certainly, that's nothing new - it's been a long-running complaint for those who love to take potshots at LEED. But what has been happening lately - especially with USGBC's new Building Performance Initiative (BPI) announcement (see In the News below) — is that some in the industry wrongly think that the BPI program will lead to certification being revoked for poor performance. Some have even suggested that building owners should start preparing their lawsuits against architects or engineers if certification were to be taken away. (There actually has been a smattering of lawsuits for not achieving a promised level of certification, including this one which was settled in March.) No doubt many in the industry would love to see certification revoked for failing to live up to the predicted performance, but many also argue that the model is just that — a prediction that does not guarantee future results, for several reasons (building use changes, HVAC system-use change, etc.) So what's the truth about BPI and certification? The Building Performance Initiative has actually been a part of the LEED 2009 program since the new suite of rating systems was released in April. If you look in the Minimum Program Requirements (MRP) section of any of the LEED rating systems, you'll find a stipulation that the project team agrees to report energy and water data for a period of five years. That requirement is actually intended to be a built-in study of the performance data of LEED-certified, not necessarily that USGBC is watching over your shoulder, ready to yank your plaque at a moment's notice. Yes, certification will be revoked if you fail to comply with that MRP requirement — but USGBC is promising to make reporting as easy as possible, setting up a Website to report, and even working with utilities in some cases to automate the process. Finally, it is worth pointing out that USGBC is acutely aware of the issue of some LEED-certified buildings not being as energy efficient as they were designed, and is taking steps to remedy this "loop hole" (as some LEED critics call it). There's a credit in LEED for New Construction for ongoing measurement and verification, which is a step in the right direction.
(By the way, if you'd like to sign up for the Green Building Alert e-newsletter, please click here.)
If you US GBC is moving towards requiring performance assessments of buildings, the ventilation and moisture management performance should be included as well to make sure that the intended healthy indoor environment is actually being achieved. This performance assessment can be achieved by simultaneously monitoring carbon dioxide and dew point at multiple locations in the building.
David W. Bearg, PE, CIH
A LEED certification does not mean that a building is energy efficient.
No, but it doesn't NOT mean a building is energy efficient - and in fact, chances are pretty good that it is.
If LEED certification does not mean that a building is energy efficient, then why do we call it LEED (Leadership in Energy...Design)?
Seems to me that we totally missing the point of LEED. We're good salespeople selling a lousy product if we're not invested in energy.
I would perceive the INTENT of this process as optimizing the use and design of a building's operation.
If a system is in place to monitor energy usage it is more important that the building owner is losing money due to increased energy consumption.
Identified inefficiencies should be considered as "poor" performance and addressed as such. Correct the things which drain your money.
Identified changes of HVAC or building use use show a lack of insight on the part of the planners if it happens early. If a business plans a 9-5 operation and goes to two shifts the added consumption could hardly be called poor performance.