The New York Times lit a powder keg with its article by Mireya Navarro last Sunday "Some Buildings Not Living Up To Green Label." The article took a broad-handed swing at the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program for certifying buildings that turn out, once occupied, to be energy guzzlers. This isn't news to many of us in the green building world, but given the Times' authority and reach, now rises to a new level of relevance.
The response within the green, green building and architecture communities, on blogs and on Twitter, has been fascinating. Here's our summary of some of the more interesting reactions:
One school of thought is that LEED isn't really an energy related standard, and shouldn't be held to task on that measure. This view was articulated by our pal and Minnesota green building guru Michael Anschel on the Remodeling Magazine blog. He says: "First, LEED certifies the process and materials used to create a structure – not the building’s operations. Second, LEED is a Green building certification, NOT an energy-efficiency building certification." Chad Smith on the Tropolism blog also takes the stand that LEED isn't about energy, and that it's no shocker that "some LEED rated buildings, particularly the ones at the lowest end of the LEED scale, particularly the ones that got certified when the LEED rating was young, aren't saving energy."
Lloyd Alter at Treehugger likewise pointed out that the Federal Building in Youngstown, Ohio, which leads the Times story, was designed a decade ago and completed in 2002. Alter rightly notes that in terms of green building, a decade ago is "like a generation ago," and that the Federal Building wouldn't meet LEED's more rigorous standards if constructed today.
Chris Cheatham at Green Building Law Update points out that, starting last spring, LEED has taken some substantial steps toward addressing this "performance gap." We agree with this wholeheartedly. Progress is underway.
Preston Koerner at Jetson Green makes perhaps the most well documented and straightforward case for the changes underway now: LEED v3 certification, as opposed to prior incarnations, contain updated requirements to address this performance gap - foremost the requirement to report energy and water consumption. Koerner's take: "LEED is creating a data pipeline, and I'll let you imagine what can happen with that data pipeline in the future." As to the challenges: "LEED is evolving and it's trying to bring the entire market with it, which is a hard task to accomplish." Point well taken.
Our two cents is this: The acronym LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It's not LED. LEED is, and we believe will remain, the preeminent green building designation. In the public's eye, "green building" means energy efficient buildings. This, in our view, is a must; we cannot continue to give our highest green building label to energy hogs. And, finally, we need to recognize, (and an article in the NY Times exposes this reality), that this isn't inside baseball amongst a bunch of us green building geeks. We are talking to the broad, unwashed public who hears LEED associated with bad energy performance and rightfully says, WTF? Preston Koerner says it nicely: "like the ingredients of a hot dog, the general population needs to understand what LEED is made of."
After all, with buildings consuming approximately 40% of America's energy, efficiency is, as the Times notes, "the cornerstone of what makes a building green." The McKinsey report Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy (pdf) made clear that a comprehensive strategy aimed at increasingly the efficiency of existing buildings could lead to $1.2 trillion in savings, and a reduction of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually - "the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads." Energy efficient, then, is about the greenest thing that a building can be.
This is a reality that the USGBC acknowledges and is working hard to make meaningful. Starting this year, all buildings seeking LEED certification will be required to report water and energy consumption for five consecutive years. But that's largely for data-gathering purposes. Many critics have suggested that for the label to remain relevant, energy requirements should be more stringent, and buildings' actual energy consumption should be made public.
While some of our friends in the LEED community may interpret Navarro's article as "bad press," and critics like Henry Gifford might say it was too soft, there is also clear recognition that LEED is moving in the right direction on energy. That said, a greater sense of urgency would seem to be in order.
Update 9-03-09 5:00PM. Unfortunately, at the time of writing, I didn't see Rob Watson's reaction (the Father of LEED) which was originally in the GreenerBuildings newsletter. A passionate, funny and worthwhile read (actually, he self-described it as a rant).
The New York Times lit a powder keg with its article by Mireya Navarro last Sunday "Some Buildings Not Living Up To Green Label." The article took a broad-handed swing at the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program for certifying buildings that turn out, once occupied, to be energy guzzlers. This isn't news to many of us in the green building world, but given the Times' authority and reach, now rises to a new level of relevance.
The response within the green, green building and architecture communities, on blogs and on Twitter, has been fascinating. Here's our summary of some of the more interesting reactions:
One school of thought is that LEED isn't really an energy related standard, and shouldn't be held to task on that measure. This view was articulated by our pal and Minnesota green building guru Michael Anschel on the Remodeling Magazine blog. He says: "First, LEED certifies the process and materials used to create a structure – not the building’s operations. Second, LEED is a Green building certification, NOT an energy-efficiency building certification." Chad Smith on the Tropolism blog also takes the stand that LEED isn't about energy, and that it's no shocker that "some LEED rated buildings, particularly the ones at the lowest end of the LEED scale, particularly the ones that got certified when the LEED rating was young, aren't saving energy."
Lloyd Alter at Treehugger likewise pointed out that the Federal Building in Youngstown, Ohio, which leads the Times story, was designed a decade ago and completed in 2002. Alter rightly notes that in terms of green building, a decade ago is "like a generation ago," and that the Federal Building wouldn't meet LEED's more rigorous standards if constructed today.
Chris Cheatham at Green Building Law Update points out that, starting last spring, LEED has taken some substantial steps toward addressing this "performance gap." We agree with this wholeheartedly. Progress is underway.
Preston Koerner at Jetson Green makes perhaps the most well documented and straightforward case for the changes underway now: LEED v3 certification, as opposed to prior incarnations, contain updated requirements to address this performance gap - foremost the requirement to report energy and water consumption. Koerner's take: "LEED is creating a data pipeline, and I'll let you imagine what can happen with that data pipeline in the future." As to the challenges: "LEED is evolving and it's trying to bring the entire market with it, which is a hard task to accomplish." Point well taken.
Our two cents is this: The acronym LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It's not LED. LEED is, and we believe will remain, the preeminent green building designation. In the public's eye, "green building" means energy efficient buildings. This, in our view, is a must; we cannot continue to give our highest green building label to energy hogs. And, finally, we need to recognize, (and an article in the NY Times exposes this reality), that this isn't inside baseball amongst a bunch of us green building geeks. We are talking to the broad, unwashed public who hears LEED associated with bad energy performance and rightfully says, WTF? Preston Koerner says it nicely: "like the ingredients of a hot dog, the general population needs to understand what LEED is made of."
After all, with buildings consuming approximately 40% of America's energy, efficiency is, as the Times notes, "the cornerstone of what makes a building green." The McKinsey report Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy (pdf) made clear that a comprehensive strategy aimed at increasingly the efficiency of existing buildings could lead to $1.2 trillion in savings, and a reduction of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually - "the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads." Energy efficient, then, is about the greenest thing that a building can be.
This is a reality that the USGBC acknowledges and is working hard to make meaningful. Starting this year, all buildings seeking LEED certification will be required to report water and energy consumption for five consecutive years. But that's largely for data-gathering purposes. Many critics have suggested that for the label to remain relevant, energy requirements should be more stringent, and buildings' actual energy consumption should be made public.
While some of our friends in the LEED community may interpret Navarro's article as "bad press," and critics like Henry Gifford might say it was too soft, there is also clear recognition that LEED is moving in the right direction on energy. That said, a greater sense of urgency would seem to be in order.
Update 9-03-09 5:00PM. Unfortunately, at the time of writing, I didn't see Rob Watson's reaction (the Father of LEED) which was originally in the GreenerBuildings newsletter. A passionate, funny and worthwhile read (actually, he self-described it as a rant).
Comments
I look forward to reading this post in more detail but I can at least commend you for not referring to Henry Gifford as an "energy fanatic."
Will check in with a more detailed comment later-
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble"
Posted by ijustinj on Sep 2, 2009 2:23pmPeter, thanks here for some kind attribution. I really like where you're going with this, which is that URGENCY as to energy efficiency should be number 1. After all, like you say, energy leadership is in the acronym.
Posted by Preston on Sep 2, 2009 2:29pmI work in a building performance profession and I thought for a long time that it would have close ties to the green building crowd. I have come to learn that the two worlds dont always intersect the way the general public like myself thinks they do. Now that I understand I get it, and follow many of the guys listed in the post. For me it was about getting to know what was in the "Hot Dog"
Posted by mfrencher on Sep 2, 2009 6:05pmExcellent post and summarization. My initial rection to the article in the Times was that of not being great PR for LEED. Some disagreed with me, and I see their point. But I stand by my reaction. We are often a very reactionary society. And at a time when green building needs to be at the forefront (which it is, thanks to USGBC's efforts, as well as other organizations efforts), to learn that LEED certified buildings are under performing will indeed elicit the WTF reaction from the genral public. In addition, it may well raise questions by folks who were considering pursuing LEED and now may say, but if they under perform... Yes, the article generalizes to a certain extent. We in the trenches know this and have responded accordingly. But the general public doesn't necessarily know this! And they are likely not reading the follow-up posts to this article. In addition, the general public is not merely uninformed citizens, but present, potential and future clinets, and CEO's and CFO's of corporations who could really be leaders in the green building effort. This is why I reacted as I did. And why I wish USGBC's response had been more forceful in the article.
Again, excellent post. Now, how can we get this post -and all the other excellent ones referenced here, out into the mainstream.
Posted by Sara Sweeney on Sep 3, 2009 5:51amRob Watson's rant is understandable, but the same point he makes about "When you have market share, you can actually get things done on a meaningful scale and that's what's starting to happen" is also true about the heap of criticism that LEED is getting in the wake of the NY Times article. The fact that people care is a good thing, and anyone interested in "market share" should be applauding the fact that there's an impassioned grassroots.
Watson's contempt for "blahggers" and feedback in general, reflected in the fact that his newsletter doesn't allow comments and thus forces discussion of it onto sites like this (thanks for the commentary and your commentary on the NY Times Green Inc piece today), is counterproductive to the movement.
Posted by Anderkoo on Sep 7, 2009 11:15amExcellent points all around.
Posted by Matt on Sep 24, 2009 11:51am