At the upcoming SimBuild event, an intriguing presentation awaits: ‘I’m speaking at the #SimBuild 2024 Conference in Denver, discussing ASHRAE 90.1’s Building Performance Factors. I hope to engage in a thoughtful dialogue about whether the published BPFs should be Redone, Rethought, or Retired.’ — Mr. Liam Buckley (from LinkedIn)

This topic piqued my interest, and it led me to consider that concepts like BPF, PI, PIt, BBUEC, and BBREC can be quite complex. The manual calculation of building performance percentages using BPF is intricate and often incomprehensible for the majority. While it’s well-suited for technical documents like ASHRAE 90.1, it may not resonate with the general public or serve as effective branding marks like LEED. ASHRAE 90.1 employs this concept as technical terminology, which may not be accessible to everyone. For non-technical individuals, a simpler representation—such as stating that 11 LEED points for optimized energy performance correspond to a 26% energy savings—provides a clearer understanding.

While LEED v4 appears similar, it lacks a mechanism to prevent buildings from attaining high certification levels without substantial efforts toward energy efficiency—an essential factor for decarbonization, as it accounts for 60-75% of greenhouse gas emissions over a building’s lifespan. LEED v5 introduces a commendable approach by requiring maximum score points for enhanced energy efficiency to attain the platinum level. However, what about the gold level? As the most popular target, buildings should not be eligible for gold certification based solely on a 30% energy savings (example numbers). Achieving gold certification requires more than just meeting straightforward criteria.