USA Today Story on LEED Misses the Mark

The point about a 27 million dollar tax credit is good to know. Supposed estimates that the hotel uses more energy than advertised is interesting.

Color blindness as to how LEED points are achieved has to lead to more controversial results. If triple bottom line were achieved in the Palazzo Hotel, we may of cynically joked about its 4 acres or solar heated pools in a Nevada desert serviced by an endangered river? Nonetheless, LEED has miraculously became a trademark for elite projects, while, perhaps 90% of buildings didn't get certified other than IECC mandates by local code officials.

Most Architects I talk to say sustainability has arrived and will be here to stay. Many now have fewer calls for LEED and still some see increases in that market looking forward to V4. LEED fame is bound to be shaken by each new significant abuse or shortcoming that is exposed. The USGBC should take note. The Palazzo shows the downside and that's an issue for the LEED merit system. The USGBC can do many things better, but whoever tied tax credits to awards should have known that wouldn't help LEED's neutrality.

For all the complexities in LEED, a better commitment of time could be an objective BIM based software model, intended to qualify energy use performance. A silver, gold or platinum track based rating as such would report actual energy measurements during initial building use. A simple certified building could rely empirical analysis guided by the IECC and other codes. I am not sure LEED needs so many more building specialty divisions than it started with either.

The future is more about evolving sustainable coding that gives direction to the tools and software we will use. LEED may survive the product line, but count on a different game with some level of BIM Integration. I marveled at how LEED achieved so much but the point system will continue to show its weakness as rational systems, digital BIM systems and smarter sustainable codes develop.

Joshua,
Excellent points.

Eric, it was an assumed value for ease of calulation. I was just hoping to be within a 10% range. The point was that 5 years payback from energy savings was unrealistic. That value you linked to was 1995 data.

Bill,
You're being generous with your cost/ft2.
"On average, $0.92 per square foot is spent on energy in education buildings, less than the national average for energy usage in commercial buildings ($1.19 per square foot)." http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/education/edu...

The worst case I was involved with was a school project. The GC did not have a construction project engineer on the job site. There was no one available to get the LEED paperwork from the subcontractors.

The GC had a staff of three people whose only job was to create change order and shove them at the owner. LEED often listed as a reason for the change, along with other reasons.

It is unusual for a GC not to have a PE on a project, but on lowest-bid-wins projects that can happen.

I have seen CM's and contractors use LEED as a scapegoat to get change orders pushed thru.

The $131 million attributed to LEED cannot be correct. LEED cost claims are often loaded with costs that have nothing to do with LEED at all.

If LEED was never considered by the schools, and the $131 million was magically "saved," you would end up with an unfinished building. Not a good end result.

I really doubt that all costs associated with LEED can be recovered by energy savings in just 5 years. Just costs associated with the EA credits having a 5 year payback would be impressive.

The blog said $131 million since 2007. Just looking at LEED-Schools projects there are 33 million square feet certified in Ohio. Assuming a typical new minimal Code compliant school building uses energy at a cost of $1/sf annually. These Ohio schools would need to be performing with 80% energy savings below Code minimum to get a payback of 5 years. Or spending just $0.20/sf annually.

Very interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it, Nadav. I am in a jurisdiction (Nova Scotia - CaGBC LEED Canada) that has zero government incentives for LEED - though there are some minor incentives for energy efficiency. I still see significant uptake of LEED for many institutions and government projects - presumably for demonstrating good governance.

I also see increasing (though perhaps slower than elsewhere) uptake commercially, where there has been no government incentives to-date. Clearly some developers see other reasons for LEED development - marketing, other financial return, or (heaven forbid) doing the right thing.

Thomas, excellent concise comment.

Some people who developed LEED made a lot of money. Also, the people who developed the onerous LEED review process made a lot of money.

As a LEED consultant, I made money from that process, but not a lot. I still drive an 8-year old car. I have almost no retirement, except what I can put aside myself.

What the review process needs to be is one that helps projects get certified and maximize green going into buildings, and not into the pockets of certain consultants.

I put together a "help them get certified" team of national experts in 2003 --including two LEED Technical Advisory Chairpersons-- with that as goal. But, the then USGBC VP, refused to allow the team to do review work even though we were rank the Number 1 team selected to do LEED reviews.

Because the "help them get certified" method was "scary" to the existing process, there were a lot of external politics to keep the "prove it to me" review process in place.

If LEED wants to reduce the negative news stories, like USA Today, as well as many others, it has to scrap the existing review process and go with a process that help projects.

Helping projects get certified hasn't been what LEED is about for many, many years.

The main points in the first two articles – people who developed LEED made money on it and that there are portions of it that reward the status quo – are both fundamentally true.

I agree that we should not be apologizing for making money given the motivations behind LEED. Getting v4 approved is the response to the second one.

Back in 2006 they still required no smoking within 25' of a building's entrance. The Palazzo does allow smoking within 25' of entrances to the LEED portions of building. (All of the shops.) The open area in the center is the gaming floor.
http://www.venetian.com/uploadedFiles/The_Venetian/Content_Blocks/Compan...

NCv2.1
"..locating any exterior designated smoking areas away from entries..."

excellent point, Shawn!!!

As an LEED international user, I’m really happy my client’s do not read USA today. There are too many positive aspects of LEED that Frank doesn’t mention… or sadly, doesn’t understand. LEED is a roadmap to sustainability. The concepts of integrated design, triple bottom line is eye opening for many of my clients. LEED gives building owners the tools they need to truly understand their building’s performance.

Since it’s so easy, I would challenge Frank to certify his USA Today building. EBOM should be a walk in the park for him. lol

Gentlemen, you are of course aware that your exchange is valuable, but not really how valuable. We, from developing countries, see you blazing the path. Sure, first efforts left room for much improvement and some peolpe made a lot of money. I have no problem with people making money for benefitting us all, even if profit was the real motor.

Frank´s article pushes us in the right direction, even if I do not like it and it was not his motive.

By the way, in my country there are no tax incentives tied to LEED compliance, but developers still go for certification in an effort to capture international companies.

For the record, I believe more emphasis should be given to actual perfomance.

Yes, perhaps not sarcastic enough to be obvious! Can you imagine an article talking about the seatbelt or child seat "industry" and only talking about the costs, incentives, profits, or lobbyists without giving serious discussion to lives saved and injuries avoided? Oy.

I thought there was a hint of sarcasm in there somewhere?

Very apt, David... but maybe a little too tongue-in-cheek.

And the point you are trying to make is what Dave?...

?

This article inspired me to look into a related industry that claims to benefit the public. I found a number of parallel conflicts (millions of federal money spent on low cost, common actions, product manufacturers sitting on committees promoting policies that would eventually benefit them, researchers profiting from a new technology that became law) that left me absolutely shocked.

In the first-ever public analysis of 7,100 records on the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) website I found similar clues of conflicts of interest, lobbyists, and pay-outs to manufacturers, advocates and non-profits. Ralph Nader, who taunted the auto industry with “Unsafe at Any Speed” one of the first PR campaigns to talk about car safety, has called the NHTSA “nothing more than a “consulting agency to Detroit.”(1)

If you follow the money, you’ll find that millions of federal highway money and tax dollars was threatened to be withheld from state budgets and law enforcement agencies if the states didn’t fall in line with the PR campaign built up around “safety” and such shock tactics as gruesome drivers-ed class films. These campaigns have created regulation that mandates low-cost or common practice actions, generates millions of dollars for the groups that promoted this cause or have the authority to enforce the laws (police departments), and were often championed by individuals and companies that developed the technologies or conducted the research that supported the public safety claims. The public benefits were often unproved, or based on questionable data, and were opposed by industry experts for many years until they were overcome by the PR efforts and lobbyists. (2)

For example, Dynamic Science, a company with annual sales of $14 million, is an off shoot of the work of Hugh Dehaven who was issued a patent for a “combination shoulder and lap safety belt” in 1955. Manufacturers of plastics and compressible foam have benefited from the multi-million dollar car restraint industry. Beam’s Seatbelts is privately-held company founded in 1953; founder Tom Beam was an early advocate for seatbelts and had $11 million left over to fund a foundation (3).

It's just shocking to see how much some companies have profited, how many federal subsidies have been tied to, and how much regulation has been pushed forward by people with ties to the seatbelt and child restraint industry, with so much statistical uncertainty about the benefits and the known risks of using the technology improperly.

(1) http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-transportation-dot/natio...
(2) http://www.fiberpipe.net/~tiktin/Documents/seatbeltskill.htm
(3) http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/148

It's an attack dog piece sprinkled with a few good points about LEED so the writer can claim he was trying to be fair. I think the USGBC response was unnecessarily restrained.

In regards to part two of the article:
What the EPA says "Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, human carcinogen."

What the American Chemistry Council says "(LEEDv4) will reward builders for avoiding common chemicals and materials such as vinyl, which is used in windows, roofing and insulation to help energy efficiency."

Agreed. If we talk about the "what" and "how" we become mired in the political mud. As my buddy Kevin from Arkansas says: "Never roll in the mud with a pig 'cause you both get dirty and the pig likes it!" :
So even though green movement is mainstreamed I think we still need to speak to media about WHY we do what we do, not how. To wit:
Berkebile calls LEED "the most transformative force in the design and construction industry in my lifetime by a factor of four. For the first time, (designers) are starting to consider how a building affects the life and well-being of the occupants and the vitality of the system in which it operates."
To place the USA article in context, here are the recommended "Other Stories" at the bottom of the article (I just read it).
"Pippa Middleton Surprised by fame of her "bottom""
"No Amount of Clorox Will Kill These Viruses:..."
"Amazing Picture of Kim Kardashian"
"22-year-old Who Won $30.5 Million Dumped By Girlfriend"
LEED in that context is not very sexy. The editors probably asked the author to pump up the article with casinos, cash, cynicism, and controversy so loyal USA Today readers would pay attention.

I agree that being part of the mainstream dialogue is a good thing but NOT when the message is so clearly one-sided. There's nuggets of truth in the articles' content of course but you get the feeling that the author was sensationalizing for effect, even though he had many more balanced facts at his disposal. The fact that this is what the public will read and not recognize how much is mis-construed is troubling.

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about"...said Oscar Wilde. Right now we have reached the 'main stream' where we are being talked about, critiqued, protested and generally being given a 'good shake', and really, that's OK. We've all know for some time that the data showing that buildings actually do reduce impacts has been missing from the equation...well, let's change that, just as we have been making changes to LEED over the last 10 years and more. We have to have a solution (LEED) that delivers and it's right there..it's called LEED EB!