This month, Jamie Qualk shares some of his thoughts on the LEED rating system. Jamie Qualk is a vice president at SSRCx, LLC and team leader of the Sustainable Solutions Group. He lectures in the Civil Engineering department of Vanderbilt University regarding sustainability and construction and also at Lipscomb University in the Institute for Sustainable Practice regarding renewable energy.  He also blogs on ED+C's Enviro-Blog and under Green Voices at TennesseeGreen.com

The U. S. Green Building Council and its LEED® green building rating system’s influence continues to grow and excel despite a less than ideal construction and building operations market.  This ongoing success also accelerates despite a growing list of critics from within and outside the industry.  While LEED is certainly not perfect, this market based tool of best practices is the finest we have to begin reducing and eventually overcoming the impacts our buildings have on the environment and the individuals that live and work in them.  

As a leader in a firm that is currently working on over 100 LEED projects, my team and I regularly encounter areas where LEED could be improved.   While we have our occasional frustrations, every day we see the benefits that a third party verification tool like LEED can deliver.  Our portfolio of projects includes existing buildings where we’ve measured water and energy reductions of 20% and 30% respectively.   Some of our new construction projects are diverting nearly all construction and demolition debris from landfills.   We’ve helped clients eliminate the majority of chemicals used by cleaning teams by implementing effective green cleaning programs.  While these and other wins are exciting for us and our clients, we recognize that these projects are still only onetime or one-project events.

As we apply our knowledge to more projects these wins tend to come easier or with even better results.  Our team as well as our clients learn a great deal from each project as we work to overcome the unique situations that can arise through the design and construction of so many buildings. As a result, our capability to reduce building impacts only improves with time.  Maybe this is one of the best things about LEED, the fact that our team and our clients are growing through the application of better habits to all projects, including those that are not pursuing LEED certification.

Vince Lombardy said, “You don’t win once in a while, you don’t do things right once in a while, you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing….” I couldn’t agree more and what I think we are seeing in the design, construction and operations marketplace is the continued application of better habits.  When we get in to the habit of applying the best practices available to us, relating to our particular role in buildings, everyone wins.

As Fast Company outlines in its article this month, a study by Environment and Human Health, Inc. has criticized LEED buildings for failing to protect against toxic indoor environments.  The studies found that even the higher levels of certification allowed hazardous chemicals in the door.  I have no doubt that there are things that can be implemented in LEED to encourage reduction of these chemicals in their buildings.  There is no doubt that LEED has some flaws, as any rating system would, and that it will need to be continuously updated to continue to push the standards of green building.

But, should we really be pointing the fingers at LEED in this case?  What they fail to talk about is how these buildings compare to traditional buildings.  Is there any reduction in harmful substances? After all, particularly in the LEED-EBOM standard, there are several credits given for things like Green Cleaning and improved ventilation.  They're doing more than most.

But the toxicity argument has an entirely different obstacle to overcome. Even the study itself notes, "The underlying problem is that thousands of different chemicals, many of them well recognized to be hazardous, are allowed by the federal government to become components of building materials. Very few of these chemicals have been tested to identify their toxicity, environmental fate or the danger they pose to human health."

These toxic chemicals are prevalent, not just where we live and work, but in all kinds of products we buy--many of which don't have to disclose all of their ingredients on the label.  Organizations like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have been actively fighting for improved regulation and protections from the government, but with limited media exposure.

So, could LEED find ways to make their rating system more encouraging of toxic-free environments? Of course.  But just pointing the finger their way for failing to eradicate harmful chemicals from their buildings misses the opportunity to raise the awareness and discussion towards the greater problem of toxic chemicals in all aspects of our lives.

Recently, I came across a discussion on Linked In in a group for LEED APs about LEED and when it is worth pursuing.  There were a lot of thoughtful comments so I would like to highlight some of the arguments and examples given so you can weigh in. 

Alex Warburton started the conversation:  I'll start with a confession:
I will not be pursuing LEED for Homes certification for a small (but eligible) project on my own property.Why?
It's a small (550') suite above a workshop/office (650') with a tight budget. LEED for Homes in Canada will add up to 10% to the cost (not including valuable hours documenting and submitting). Money (and time) that could go a long way towards active energy efficiencies and landscaping.

I'm curious to hear from other people that are facing similar realities, or hearing from people that think i'm making a mistake.

Jerry Jaz: I don't think you are making a mistake to not pursue LEED for your addition. Marketing aside, $ is always better spent on measurable results than on measuring.  

My wife and I are remodeling our condo and while we could have applied for LEED or Built Green certification, we passed in favor of our own rigorous oversight of the project plans, materials, and execution. I am doing 1/3rd of the work myself. Sourcing materials, educating the vendors and sub-contractors, and mid-stream discoveries of prior poor building make this a full time job. We would have had to hire another tradesperson to compensate for the paperwork load....

Alex: Just a quick note to add to this - even if it's just you and me here, Jerry -
I had an appraiser over at my property today as part of some re-financing i'm doing. Now a days of course, these are taken very seriously and throughly for the banks.
I asked him if LEED has any effect on his evaluation of a property and he said not a penny. A new roof; yes, new windows; yes, geothermal; a big yes, but certification; no.
Granted this is just one area (Vancouver-Whistler), but it can't be that unique, can it?

Jerry: I'm not surprised. We had a banker in our Sustainable Building Advisory Program and her intention was to create an advantage for green projects. Banks are conservative institutions (recent history aside) and therefore slow to react. I think the big revolution will come through Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) that favor sustainably built property. They will gain the benefit of higher rents, lower turnover, maintenance, etc, which add to profit...

Brad Potter: I think you are both right on about this. I have reviewed too many projects that appear to be shopping for points and not about the concept / philosophy behind the innovations.

The documenting will also put you farther ahead. I know of a nearby building that is LEED certified, but was constructed very poorly. I feel it is not about just having green features, but that they are done correctly and holistically.

Jerry: Good point Brad. One of the things I love about the National Sustainable Building Advisor Program (http://nasbap.com/ ) is their focus on the "Why" and not just "How." A blend of both "Sitting with the land" and "Filling out the form" is where we want to be....

David Jacobs: Alex, Considering the forum you are in, you have in some ways started a bold conversation (you too Jerry). It's easy to get caught up in the "need for LEED" and ignore real life conditions. There are, of course, commercial benefits to many LEED-Certified projects.
However, we shouldn't get lost in certification world when the ultimate benefits come from implementing the principles not from the rating.

Alex: I agree with everything you've stated David. - thanks for joining in. I thought this conversation would be more engaging and educational, than simply bold...I consider the process of becoming an active LEED AP as just a part of my greater education on sustainable building practices. I don't consider myself a salesman for any one organization.
Of course i'm well aware (and agree) with the commercial benefits of LEED in markets where the USGBC has been able to penetrate on both implementation and public awareness/marketing levels. Large public projects such as hospitals and schools should absolutely be pursuing certification. The commissioning of complex structures alone, i feel, is worth the price of admission and third party verification is crucial to some landlords getting tenants in tight markets.

However, this particular project didn't seem to crying for LEED. It's a small, personal, tightly budgeted structure and is not for sale for a very long time. My gut was telling me it wasn't worth it and i thought it prudent to consult with my peers before making this decision final. I was also genuinely interested in hearing of similar projects that either agreed or disagreed with my direction.

Jerry: I'm excited to put LEED Retail to work for a new restaurant in a 2 year old -and as yet- unoccupied space in Seattle. I love LEED Retail because it has the ability to touch people in subtle and substantial ways. I want the ripple effect to lower the threshold of emotional buy-in for citizens who imagine a sustainable lifestyle may be too fancy, complex, or costly...It does take money and/or time to be an early adopter (iPhone/iPad anyone?) and I know that somewhere between Dwell and Mother Earth News is where everyone really lives. I raise my glass and toast everyday LEED.

Tony Holub: Good discussion. I see points on all sides. I only take issue with 2 things in the quote "$ is always better spent on measurable results than on measuring. You can not have 'measurable' results without actually measuring something. Secondly, 'Always' is an absolute and there are instances where the inverse of this statement is true (beyond marketing). But I agree with what I believe your basic premise is --> sometimes more value can be gained from implementation than from analysis, benchmarking, and/or validation. What are the project's priorities...? This is a good place to start.

From personal experience, I learned a lot on my first LEED project. It was mostly things that I thought I already 'knew'. Submitting all the documentation was an eye opening for me and the project was better from it.

I am an advocate for proving what you claim, and there is a lot of green-washing currently. 3rd party certifications are one way to combat this problem. And persons concerned with the brand of LEED (myself included) should seek to continually improve/advance the standard so it doesn't become green-washing too...

Tu Diep: ...At the moment I feel LEED for Homes is still a very small niche...However in the commercial sectors, LEED has become very popular, as many of you here already know. I have worked on 4 LEED projects (new construction and commerical interiors) and find the process very demanding. The documentation required is very specific and many times the project team doesnt provide documentations to meet the strict requirements. My experience is with the older versions of LEED. With LEED 3.0, all this is going streamlined. Havent worked on a 3.0 project yet to see if the change is truly effective or not.

I think you (Alex) are like many of us, and just dont have the additional money to pay for LEED home certification. We all want to show our commitment of sustainability to our neighbors but the cost factor is quite a obstacle.

Richard Eiden: There is one facet, one key benefit of certification missing from the previous comments. That is that commissioning of energy using systems is required to receive LEED certification. For decades owners have not wanted to pay for this service believing that it should be included. Now when bundled with a certification it is accepted! In my opinion, commissioning of energy using systems is the single most important benefit derived from LEED Certification. Keep in mind that this commissioning includes the HVAC digital BMS control system.
....

Peter Styx: Commissioning, absolutely, but do not forget about measurement and verification! There is that old managment saw that says you only get out what you measure. I could not believe how my driving behavior changed when I started instantly seeing the GPM on my Honda Civic Hybrid, and the same thing happens in buildings. I have a client that has their building energy use on a "dashboard" in their lobby and this has lowered their energy consumption below what was expected.

Tara Nienaber: We've had several clients ask about LEED certification. We work on smaller commercial projects and it just doesn't make sense for these clients to spend the extra money. So, we have steered several clients away from going for LEED. My firm doesn't have a LEED certified project yet (we have 1 on in the works) because we feel it's our job to not steer our clients into something that may not have a payback for them.

Evan Falivene: Here in San Diego, the consensus is that the benefit of green building and retrofits is 80% behavior and 20% materials/systems. A plaque on the wall is far less valuable than the bottom line savings through actual operational efficiencies. LEED is very inefficient in actually ensuring that buildings perform better, as it is currently more focused on design and not verification. When it comes down to it, all anyone will care about is the actual numbers like utility bill savings, which decreases expenses and increases value. Also, very few appraisers actually understand the cost benefits of sustainable systems, so it's hard for them to value.

Nicole Vance: I dont know much about LEED for Homes but there are plenty of examples on the USGBC website of LEED certified projects that have been built at or under budget. One includes Weston Solutions' new NE headquarters in Concord, NH.

Alex: Yes Nicole - it's not hard to find plenty of success stories on the USGBC site. However; at the risk of sounding cynical to an organization that has made monumental leaps in our industry (and continues to do so) - they're not exactly an unbiased source of information. Thats what i find so interesting about this discussion. There seems to be a lot of real world stories out there that contradict the case studies. Maybe not for large, complex projects, but as the title of the discussion asks; when is it big enough? Thankfully, no one here is questioning the practice of building green, regardless of size.

We'd love to see this conversation carried a bit further.  After all, are there projects that are better suited to LEED than others?  In smaller spaces, is there a barrier to entry where the expense of certification outweighs the benefit?  What have your experiences been?  

This month, we are pleased to have Sheri Lucas share her perspective and experience with LEED EBOM.  

Sheri has been charged with introducing sustainable design, construction, operations and maintenance practices into Wells Fargo’s retail banking stores since 2005. With over 12 years experience in retail real estate strategy, this LEED AP loves the win-win game of increasing efficiency while reducing environmental impact. Sheri has a BS in Interdisciplinary Studies from Boston University and is currently studying for the GMAT while juggling her love of hiking, baking, and photography. She can also be found on Twitter and the Wells Fargo Environmental Forum.

EBOM, EBOM, EBOM. I utter this acronym with every other sentence. It seems LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance has become the love of my life. 

Yes, I really do love EBOM. Not because I’m a masochist. No, because EBOM is so much more than prereq’s and points and templates and calculations and performance periods. EBOM is a much-needed agent for greatly changing the way we do business, from floor to ceiling, from input to output. Nearly everything that happens in and around the four walls of every business is covered by EBOM.  

I’m stating the obvious when I point out that EBOM is designed for our existing building stock. And that stock is beyond enormous. According to the EPA, in 2002 there were nearly 4.9 million office buildings in the US alone. Anyone familiar with LEED knows the built environment has significant impact on the natural environment, its occupants, and the communities that surround every building.  

This is what makes EBOM so vital. We can wax poetic about the brand new NC Platinum high rise all we want, but most of our buildings already exist. Most are not optimally performing. They ingest precious resources like it’s going out of style.  

Oh, that’s right, it is going out of style!  

I’m also sorry to say that most of those pre-existing buildings aren’t very pleasant to be in, whether it’s due to bad lighting or lousy air quality.  

So there you have it. EBOM is the most important of all the rating systems. My hope is that more building owners jump on this bandwagon and stat. We have a lot of work to do. 

But there’s more – something I didn’t realize when I first elected to roll EBOM out across a couple thousand buildings. EBOM not only focuses on the physical system and structure, it focuses on our on-going, day-to-day habits, procedures, and events. And even while we’re still compiling our prerequisite submittals, we’re already triggering great changes across our footprint.  

We’re working with our contract management team to secure a recycling component to our waste management contracts. We’re working with our purchasing teams to ensure our supplies are environmentally friendly in a meaningful way. We’re designing an integrative green cleaning policy. We’re measuring our greenhouse gas emissions and aiming for our benchmarks. I could go on and on. 

But what do I mean by “meaningful” environmental-friendliness? Well, the ever-important certification path associated with all the rating systems necessitates a rigorous approach. That third-party nod confirms we’re walking the talk. This is immensely important, especially in consideration of all the hard work that goes into eliciting great change. We want everyone to know we understand the difference between green and greenwash. Meanwhile, there is currently lack of strong national green business certification in the marketplace. There is no widespread independent system for verifying sustainable practices within the four walls. 

Stephanie Rico, from our Environmental Affairs group, recently commented to me, “We have great localized green business programs like San Francisco Green Business, but recognition from one local body isn’t going to resonate in another town across the country. Having a nationally recognized system for verification would be my dream come true.” Well, Stephanie, I have some good news. To my (pleasant) surprise, much of EBOM covers actual business practices. I often find myself telling people it not only addresses the building itself, but everything that goes on inside, as well. And certification of those efforts is indeed on a national scale. 

In seeking to reduce our impact, we looked to EBOM as a way to reduce our buildings’ energy use. What we hadn’t recognized was how effective it would be at greening our daily practices. We’re already seeing great changes. And I’m excited to witness the ongoing expansion of those changes as we continue on this path.