New USGBC Membership Fee Structure

It's up there with amusement parks offering gold passes (fast passes) for an extra fee. It lowers the enjoyment of the park for everyone else while watching others walk past to the front of the line.

Sorry about that - the previous comment was from Sarah Karle at USGBC.

Thanks for posting, USGBC. If you log in to your personal account while accessing LEEDuser through IP authentication, then we can know who you are on the forum!

All – we appreciate the comments and dialog. You’ve provided a number of great suggestions that we are considering as we seek to address these concerns. We plan to reach out to all member organizations prior to their renewal in order to ensure that they understand the new structure and how their organization fits. If the new membership packages don’t meet the needs of your organization, we encourage you to contact us so we can find a solution that does. Your feedback is a vital part of this transition and it will only serve to strengthen the new membership offerings.

How about a $500 option for firms that just want the existing discounts, voting, and membership directory? More value and choice.

It's about who needs who more. Does USGBC rely on small consultants more or do the small consultants rely on USGBC more?

@ Hernando, Like most decisions it just about how to spin it so people accept it. Even if it's just a griping acceptance. There's not exactly a level field to negotiate fee rates.

Sarah I think perhaps you all believe that there is a "value" to me as a consultant that should be included in my membership fees. LEED clients include LEED APs on their teams right now just to get a credential posted and get the member fee discounts. Design firms (and others) currently offer that person's "involvement" regardless of whether a true LEED professional actually hepls out in the design an dplanning process. Usually the LEED AP is stuck with simply corraling data and working online where the design architects and engineers don't want to waste their time.
When a project team engages a true LEED consultant who can work across all the disciplines, facilitate the desired LEED Online engagement by the right team members, and deliver a successful and sincere green project, they shouldn't be penalized by having to pass through a higher cost (or eating it) for their certificaiton. I truly believe that much of the USGBC staff is simply not aware of how the LEED process works today - even in your largest most visible design partners. And I know this firsthand - I'm not whining about competition - just pointing out that the Beltway Bubble might be at work even in our green world.
I also do not agree with Hernando's psoposed solution for the same reason - why penalize my costs? Simply put - there should be an organizational level for organizations who want to participate but will never have to pay the cert fees on actual projects. Another level for small dollar firms - maybe $600 but certainly NOT $1,500 for heaven's sake - who do pay the certification fees. Is noone in DC hearing the biggest complaint about actual LEED certification is the fees the projects have to pay to USGBC? Do you not hear the endless comments about how much money USGBC is raking in in fees for this and that? There is a ton of skepticism out in the country that needs to be addressed before you hike project costs. THanks!

Hernando – this approach enables USGBC to more effectively address the needs of our members. If the benefits packages do not work for your organization, we want to work with you to find a solution that does. It’s the start of a conversation that will help our organization continue to grow and evolve.

Natural gas is three and half times more per unit in Europe plus the taxes.

Isn't the unemployment rate under 8.0% now? Maybe next year will be the summer of recovery? $1,200 is about two tanks of gas in Europe.

Eric: Hey - good idea! Perhaps I should try that with my clients: "I have to charge higher fees - after all, my business is down and I have to make it up somewhere."

I've gone from really irritated to mildly amused at this latest debacle from national. It's a really unfortunate mis-step at a very bad time. Many firms large and small are still closing offices and laying off staff. My tiny business has been focused more on sustainability rather than solely on LEED and it will continue to be that way - hopefully I'll make it through this economic storm.

I think $1,500 is a fair price. Since they lose a few million on LEED registration and certification they need to make it up somewhere.

Very thoughtful note Michelle - yes, it is important to keep the conversation going and to remember our manners, even when we're upset.

Re your question about special customer service for those who pay at the Gold/Platinum level: I was gobsmacked when I read that, and I can think of no rational justification for such a move against the general membership. People constantly express their frustration about the non-reponsiveness of the USGBC, and here they seem to be saying 'if you pay us a LOT of money, we'll return your phone call and be nice to you'. Implying - 'as for the rest of you, tough luck'.

Customer service - it's kind of the keystone to success. What could they be thinking?

Michelle and everyone -- please join LEEDuser at Greenbuild at "K13 - LEEDuser: Tips and Tricks from the Field," Friday Nov. 16 9:30 AM – 10:30 AM! Room 2022, West Building

Also visit us at Booth 1633S.

I want to say that I had a good conversation with Sarah Karle on 9/25/12 and I am hopeful that USGBC will respond to the concerns of small businesses by developing some kind of less painful transition/modifications to the new structure. Yet, I would encourage everyone who is concerned about this issue to politely e-mail membership@usgbc.org with your thoughts, fill out the survey, and even request to Customer Service that Membership call you if you want to have a constructive dialogue. USGBC needs to hear from its members - especially small firms who I believe are the heart of USGBC.

I did tell Sarah that I valued the service of discounted certification and registration fees and the thought of clients buying multiple years of $1,500 memberships to get the discounts doesn’t add up for a typical construction project that takes multiple years to design, construction, and certify. I also suggested a membership level that includes the discounts without a webinar subscription should be something to consider.

However, if I had found this forum when I first got the e-mail from USGBC I might have voiced a lot of the same gripes as Hernando and Karen. I was flabbergasted by the major changes/increases with little notice and felt it was an attack on small businesses who have contributed so much to this movement.

Nadav, as much as respect you and your work, I do have to say I was saddened by your post. I had my consulting company before USGBC even existed (1992) and have doing green building consulting exclusively since 1995. I didn’t build my business on LEED. LEED came into the arena and became the game in town - to the detriment of existing green building programs. Let’s get real - the market is tough now with the economy and with every Tom, Dick, and Mary with an English degree claiming they can do LEED certification with no design or construction experience. Green building used to be about doing the right thing - not how many points you earned on a scorecard. I’m not saying that LEED hasn’t done some fabulous things for green building - like giving high performance issues a seat at the table - but there has been a dark underbelly of bureaucracy and incompetency too. (Karen, your points on USGBC and beta are spot on! ) I dropped my ASHRAE membership to cut expenses this year and to have USGBC quintuple my dues is hard to take. I feel that USGBC continues to make decisions and changes that are crippling small businesses who have supported (and now defended) it - this is just another example.

Hernando - I hope there is some LEEDuser forum at Greenbuild that we might meet at. You have no fear in speaking your mind and trying to get the powers to be to see reason on this and other posts in LEEDuser. Thanks for starting this forum.

I am curious also if anyone has any concerns about the higher level memberships (Gold and Platinum) getting special customer service. In my naïve view, there’s something wrong with that model for a non-profit.

A few thoughts, trying to put the issues in terms of their impact upon the interests of the USGBC:

1. Not all those consultants who are involved with LEED are specialized in LEED consulting only. I am a partner at an architectural firm that attempts to advance the cause of sustainability, and LEED has been a useful tool in our efforts. I don't know how much USGBC and GBCI are aware of this, but the market out there is extremely competitive and everything goes into the mix when competing for projects; this is not 2008, and we have a hard enough time getting fees that pay the bills. It is not possible for us to pass on increases to our clients, or to have them pay for the non-membership registration fees and then pocket the difference (this would be equivalent to taking a percentage on top of permit fees!). Our clients want to see all of our actual costs, and competitors will certainly absorb these costs- which particulary benefits large firms, as the cost is very small compared to their overall revenue stream. If this goes through USGBC will see another large drop in their membership as the large firms will be the only ones left, and even they are becoming fewer as they continue to consolidate.

2. This fee structure will also add one more item to the scales when clients weigh their options on how to approach their sustainability goals. Other systems are available for them to choose from, and the options become more attractive as the costs and bureaucracy of LEED increase. This sort of action actually encourages the growth of competing systems; I would equate this to putting a tariff on sustainabilty.

3. I deal with a number of clients, including government agencies, and they are all seriously considering dropping LEED certification as a requirement. The process has become difficult enough, with the increasing emphasis on meeting arcane requirements rather than achieving the goal of sustainability, as well as changing MPRs and requirements in the middle of a project. I do not think it advisable, from the USGBC's point of view, to add another item to the negative column.

Sorry Karin,

I didn't intend to call you out in that way. And I do appreciate what a challenge it has been to work with LEED through USGBC's myriad missteps. But I also remember how few projects were even considering green measures before LEED came along, and how quickly the market grew once it did. I guess the credit should be shared.

Hernando--there must be lots of ways of looking at these numbers, because I'm now hearing a bunch of grousing about the change from people at large firms as well. They're almost as worked up about it as you are ;-)

I'm anticipating a difficult conversation with my boss. The Silver membership cost increase is 'erased' with the savings to register the first project but he still isn't going to like it. He feels everything I do adds costs with minimal positive impact. Good thing I'm plucky.

Nadav, with all due respect, I am a two person firm who does all LEED all the time and have successful many projects. But at the end of the day my total annual revenue is less than $150,000 gross!And they did not create the business opportunity - and I am not "taking advantage. I spend countless hours defending the continual beta mode of all the tools USGBC/GBCI keep implementing - basically missionary work and it has been non-stop for 7 years now. The business opportunity you refer to is one I have personally built for myself with a whole big benefit going right back to USGBC when all is said and done!

So no, re-distributing the massive costs of all the continual change, do-overs, staff changes, overreaching organizational decisions that no corporation could survive on the backs of the many experts like me out here is not even remotely fair. And I'm actually shocked that you are one calling me out - I'm one of those experts around who cannot afford to pay USGBC for the "honor" of joining the faculty even though I AM the one teaching Universities, large global corporations, school districts, contractors, and many, many architects and engineers how to use the LEED tools on a daily basis! Yikes!

Back to one of Karen's original points, does anyone know why you have to be employed at a USGBC Membership firm before you can be a member? There are a lot of organizations that allow individual membership. It seems counter to the organization's objective of market transformation if only those who are already in the market are allowed to join.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing that the staff has grown in these past two years - does anyone know by how much?

18,000 Members - 4/29/2010
13,000 Members - 10/3/2012

This is most likely an attempt to make up for the dropping membership numbers. When the economy took a nose dive so did their membership. They stopped posting numbers a couple years ago but it's probably still going down. So this is their solution to fill the revenue hole.

We have also been getting a lot of messages from the USGBC about membership renewal. I suspect that many smaller firms will not be able to pay the increased fees for the reasons stated above. The USGBC membership will now probably change to consist of a smaller number of large firms. The USGBC will then need to increase the fees again to make up for the smaller membership, which will accelerate the trend further. This will affect the breadth of the LEED constituency and ability of the USGBC to claim that it is representative of the Green Building movement. A sad state of affairs.

I represent another small LEED consulting firm that like most of you before in the thread, cannot understand how this new structure does anything but benefit large corporations and generate more revenue for the USGBC for less apparent service.

We too were early adopters of green building programs and have done more than our share of marketing on LEED's behalf. We too basically pass through the certification fees and will get no benefit from paying a higher membership to secure them. We too have struggled all along to feel like an acknowledged partner and valued member of the USGBC, despite the consensus driven membership organization rhetoric.

When the new fees were announced, we were confused about why the USGBC would use a sponsorship model for membership. With sponsorship, more dollars buys you more access and PR. Then when we got to the part about "timely" customer service or lack thereof, we were incensed to realize that is exactly what is happening. More dollars overtly buys you a quicker response, and I think we could be forgiven in this model for thinking, maybe a better or more beneficial response by virtue of dedicated higher level personnel than a lesser member might receive.

Like you, we can't compete on this level. Though we have been told by the USGBC directly that we produce a "large" volume of LEED projects even as compared to much larger firms and that they want only to support our efforts to do even more, we are only a 4 person firm. Their actions are speaking louder than their words.

We have been getting bombarded with calls and emails from the USGBC about membership and when we will be re-upping. So many that it's getting really annoying. Now reading this thread, I'm wondering if they are calling incessantly to find out when or simply if we're going to renew.

This month we face the same decision, so my question is to those of you who have decided not to renew or not to renew at the Silver level for the sake of the cert fees. How is that working for you? Are you finding yourselves at a real disadvantage or is it simply business as usual? Are your larger competitors who say they do LEED but don't live and breathe it like us cutting into your market share?

From those of you who have started down this road, what would you advise the rest of us?

Hello - I was wondering what folks are doing with their membership renewals as well. Nope, no chance of 'working out a solution' with HQ. It is what it is. I just renewed at the 'organizational' level so I can vote no on LEED v4 ;o).

I expect membership is still dropping, but I also doubt that they will realize how much good will they've blown with this membership structure change and the deafening silence that followed after people complained. Sad.

Since money seems to be the driver these days, opening up individual memberships would probably generate additional income as well as re-generate some good will.