Does LEED need to measure up to survive?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 10:11AM We are pleased to have advisory board member Rich Cartlidge sharing his thoughts this week. Find out more about Rich on the B2S Team page.
This past week I reported over at GBET about Dartmouth College’s LEED certified buildings not performing to their expected levels of energy efficiency. While building LEED certified buildings is a very laudable goal and one which more individuals and organizations should pursue, Dartmouth’s problems with energy efficiency illustrate the need for transparency in the building process. The example of the LEED certified buildings at Dartmouth underperforming is, unfortunately, not an isolated problem, but it is one that can be rectified. Build2Sustain will provide the tools and the necessary exchange of information to facilitate the construction and operation of the buildings of tomorrow at their expected performance levels. Here at Build2Sustain, Chris Hill and I have been busily compiling data on LEED certified buildings and attempting to analyze any trends that might be apparent. What is abundantly apparent is that, while LEED certification is a great achievement, without corresponding energy efficiency LEED certification may begin to see a decrease in popularity. When we return to the astronomical energy prices of the Summer of 2008, individuals may shift away from LEED in pursuit of building design which emphasizes the achievement of energy efficiency. As Sara Sweeney, another Build2Sustain advisory board member has pointed out:
“Energy efficiency is the key to reducing operating costs. Energy efficiency also reduces our collective dependence on fossil fuels. Now, in all truth, we will not stop using fossil fuels to generate power and etc. -and frankly and in all honesty, I don't think we should; we cannot power our current standard of living without them. By being more efficient with the use of current resources however, we open the door to supplementing these resources with other alternative sources, as well as continuing to find better, cleaner ways to burn the fossil sources we do use." This is no big news to anyone I know. But I appreciate Dartmouth taking note of this -even if indirectly, and in the process, being both financially and environmentally responsible; the two can go hand-in-hand, and in this case, will. LEED is a tool - a good one, but in the end, as Joe Lstiburek says, "it's the energy stupid."”
Here at Build2Sustain we will find a way to reduce our demand for fossil fuels and to shift Americans and hopefully the world to a habit of building sustainable, energy efficient buildings.
Reader Comments (6)
While LEED may fall short on the energy efficiency front (and I am a big proponent of cost savings as a sales tool), we can't completely lose sight of some of the other "eco-friendly" aspects of LEED. Nor can we lose sight of the fact that LEED got here first and seems to have taken on a life of its own. Whether we like it or not LEED must be considered
Great post Rich! And Chris, a well-taken point. I am so glad to see LEED continuing to make strides forward, but do wish there was more focus on energy efficiency still, ie: more prereqs. This is where the real economic sense currently lies. However, I know that until we move past the standard first cost mindset, this will be a tough sell. Energy effiency in the long run can -and often does, have up front increased costs. And LEED by its own admission exists to transform the marketplace so there is a balance that they need to maintain -if they were too stringent, no one would pursue LEED certification, and that's not the point of LEED. But Chris is correct too that we do need to keep other environmental goals and stewardship in mind as well, another reason LEED was developed. I think this will be the constant challenge we will face when using LEED as a metric for building green -at least until we reach that tipping point where it will start to become more second nature, so to speak.
Third the thumbs up, great post Rich!
I do not know if you saw Stephen Del Percio's recent post on an earlier energy study, may be something else to pull in the mix as well, http://su.pr/1QShVT
The arguments are healthy but let’s keep them in perspective. LEED is part of the solution; not the problem.
I disagree with the basic assumption that LEED is falling short. LEED has done more to transform the building industry to be greener; more environmentally responsive, more socially responsible and more energy efficient than any other system or movement….by far.
I also disagree with the assumption that, “it’s the energy stupid”. To avoid the massive degradation of our environment that has occurred over the past few hundred years the building industry has to make very significant improvements in the way we develop building sites; use water; extract, transport and use building materials; provide for a healthy and enriching indoor environment: and design to minimize the need for external energy and use energy. It is not all about the energy. Energy is and should play a bigger role than it has in the past, but “it’s about the whole picture”.
Can the energy performance of buildings be improved? Certainly! Can the gap between energy modeling “benchmarks” and performance be improved? Certainly! Is LEED at fault for the gaps in modeling? No. Is LEED at fault for not insisting that buildings meet higher energy standards? That is arguable, but in fact LEED has been raising the bar on performance requirements consistently.
LEED energy optimization credits are tied in most cases to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1. A few years ago LEED raised the bar by moving the minimum requirement from meeting ASHRAE Std. 90.1 to achieving 2 Optimize Energy Performance credits (a 14% savings for new buildings and a 7% savings for existing buildings above ASHRAE Std. 90.1). In the latest version of LEED; V3 (2009) those requirements are tied to the 2007 version. This version is much more stringent than past versions. ADSHRAE Std. 90.1 is updated every 3 years. The proposed 2010 standard is again much more stringent than the 2007 version. In fact it raises the bar so much that I think many will balk at even meeting this standard. Because if followed, it will cause many to make significant changes to the envelope assemblies and HVAC systems that architects are used to designing, contractors are used to constructing and manufacturers are used to building. I agree these are necessary growing pains but will not be easy for the vast majority of the industry. I suspect forward thinking adopters of LEED will have an easier time with this.
LEED should not be blamed because of gaps between modeling and actual performance. Energy models are not and never were intended to accurately predict use. They are rather indicators of relative performance and have a tolerance of error typically in the 5-7% range, and are based on pretty basic use assumptions. Different people and different groups use like buildings differently. Just as we rarely hit EPA fuel efficiency ratings for cars on the nose; so too with buildings. My teenage son does not obtain the same fuel efficiency in my car that I do. It’s the same car, same power plant, same fuel; but there is a sizable gap in the mileage performance between us. Perhaps energy models should give a range of anticipated performance rather than a single number.
Energy monitoring is one way to close the gap between energy modeling and actual performance. LEED recognizes this and includes an optional credit for monitoring. A LEED Gold certified office building we designed was underperforming its energy model after 4-5 months of operation. After looking at their monitoring results the owner’s made adjustments with their systems. The resulting improvements now have the building performing at approximately 10% above the level indicated by modeling. The office policy also includes educating the employees on the energy saving features of the building and effective and efficient use.
Most building owners are more concerned about saving money not energy. If saving energy saves them money then great, they are for that. But they are rarely concerned about the greater good to society. Because LEED focuses on the big picture it is truly helping lead to a healthier, more enriching, more prosperous; hence more sustainable society.
As a system for making more efficient buildings, LEED has accomplished it's initial goals and then some. That this conversation is happening in America is a testament to the success of the USGBC. It was also an experimental program that had to make a lot of compromises to get off the ground. It is soaring, as it is evolving. For protecting people, profits, and the planet it is far superior to Energy Star, it's earliest "competitor".
Anyone who takes a simplistic linear approach where all that counts is a building's energy usage doesn't really get it. Note that the second "E" in LEED stands for Environment.
The externalized costs are also vitally important. The occupancy performance is also crucial. Done well, high performance buildings can increase occupancy performance by as much as 16%. Generally, a 2% increase in productivity could cover all the incremental costs of Gold or Platinum LEED.
I think the building industry and leasing companies need to do some measuring up. Follow the lead of Liberty Property Trust and PNC. If the industry would permit it there wouldn't be many compromises with LEED. If the industry really cared, this conversation would be unnecessary.
The EU is rapidly moving toward net-zero as the minimum standard. This fact has been noted by the DVGBC and the US, as well. If we had the requirements of the environment in mind, the future of our children and grandchildren in mind, and not the short-term profit motive we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It's really about the planet and we're heading toward a cliff. It's really about our children so why not ask their opinion? If we really cared, why are we stealing their inheritance?
Do you ever know about the funny vibrams five fingers and what do the vibram five fingerslooks like?Do you realize the making principle and function of vibram five finger shoes?Now I am very happy to talk about vibram five fingers sales with all of you because I just know somewhat about five fingers vibram.The rubber sole of vibram fivefinger shoes are quite soft.You may feel strange when you wear vibram five fingers sale first time.But you will feel very comfortable after you wear vibram fivefingers several time.Then you are supposed to know that vibram five fingers can protect our feet to a great degree.You can keep the right posture of you feet when you put on this interesting vibram five finger sale.With vibrams five finger,you can feel motion of you body sensitively.And then you can adjust to you walking posture.This is why vibrams fivefinger shoes can avoid some disease for incorrect walking posture.It have wide kinds of five finger vibrams such as Vibram Five Fingers Shoes Classic,Vibram Five Fingers Shoes Sprint,Vibram Five Fingers Shoes Performa,Vibram Five Fingers Shoes MOC,Vibram Five Fingers Shoes KSO Terk,Vibram Five Fingers Shoes KSO,Vibram Five Fingers Shoes Flow.As vibram fivefingers for sale are made according to foot of human,vibram 5 fingers is more anti-skidding,wear-resisting and well-knit compared to ordinary shoes.So vibram five fingers for sale can be as rock shoes and you can enjoy various of outdoors activities as much as possible.vibrams 5 fingers have huge function of health care and physical therapy.You will feel soft,comfortable and keep you feet dry having vibram fivefingers sale. fivefingers vibram would take health for all of you.vibram five fingers on sale .