LEED v5 idea: Let's certify buildings, not intentions

Amen!   “The map appears to us more real than the land.” – D.H. Lawrence EUI and WUI are relatively easy to verify compared to other metrics which may not already be being measured or are more qualitative.  This would create huge incentive to deal in real data and would have cascading effects on other systems such as DDX.

Absolutely, although I would want data for year two or even three as the cut-off. With my clients that have invested in extended commissioning for up to three years, the big improvement in performance was between years one and two. The first year, there is still too much to figure out on the systems/facilities side, and the users usually need that time as well to figure out how best to use the building. Jana

Z - This is a great and timely pursuit to engage in! Thank you for including the community. Either directly or indirectly, we should recommend a path toward alignment with other well established programs, specifically COTE Top Ten. Not suggesting that one supplants another, but the more alignment the stronger each program becomes and, arguably, the influence on the industry at large. 

Z – In pursuing net zero energy on our first project in the performance period, I have come to feel that it is likely that few buildings operate as our energy models predict. We have a long list of lessons learned that venture far afield from differences in weather patterns. So I heartily agree that mandating a performance period in building certification is necessary. Lois F

I think the lessons learned and the feedback loop ideas are important ones. Even on projects where the predicted EUI matches the metered EUI, it just the beginning (substitute EUI with performance for non-energy areas). We need more granularity in terms of metering to understand what worked and what didn’t, zero energy or not. On one project where we collected utility data for four years, the annual EUIs matched but the monthly performance told a different story. We need to dig deeper to understand which end uses matched and which differed and why but that is hard to do without a metering plan. [cid:image003.png@01D5484C.ED6DD450] Ramana Koti Associate, BEMP, LEED AP BD+C D +1 404 253 1478 LORD AECK SARGENT A KATERRA COMPANY F

Z, I also agree. I think LBC is a useful model because you don’t get certified until after a full year (minimum) of operations. I also think documenting based on actual performance might be easier because it doesn’t necessarily require simulation; although simulation is still important to make smart decisions during design. Another benefit of this approach is it requires a partnership between Owner and Designer (and contractor) that isn’t necessarily as strong in LEED. (You get clients that think it’s entirely on the designer to achieve a LEED rating, divorcing discussions about occupant behavior from the design process). I also get a little crazy when we talk about energy modeling by asking “do you want a LEED compliance model or a predictive model?” That needs to stop, guessing there’s a difference because there is a need to document compliance with an energy code to get a permit before the design is constructed. The energy model we did for Brock was within 2% of the actual performance of Brock because we worked very hard to understand user behavior and to model controls, schedules, occupancy, etc.. We did that because we wanted to minimize any surprises because LBC only certifies based on actual performance. I do acknowledge that the first year of occupancy, the occupants used the building to align with the assumptions behind the model, and after that they felt more confident using the building as they needed. We’ve seen the energy use of Brock go up a bit over the years, pretty slight though. I completely agree that it’s time to certify based on actual performance, not predicted performance! I also like the model of Target Finder that you reference. There could be the “Designed to Achieve LEED Gold” and the “LEED Gold Certified” plaques or logos, but at least there’d be some recognition that predicted achievements will vary from actual achievements. GREG MELLA FAIA, LEED AP BD+C Vice President | Director of Sustainable Design _____________________________________ T 202.974.5187 C 202.375.3395 From: Lois Vitt Sale

How about a cardboard plaque until you verify performance? All kidding aside, I think an EUI per occupant might also be a useful metric, as a building with higher occupant density , making more efficient use of the built resource, would have a higher EUI per sf than a building with low-occupant density.

As a group we should come up for an EUI per person metric that makes sense, and propose it as a starting point. Square footage doesn’t change, occupancy does. So figuring out what goes in the denominator would be pretty crucial, particularly for non-office spaces…. Z – thanks for getting this started. It’s such a critical topic. Ale. Alejandra Menchaca, Ph.D., LEED AP, WELL AP Senior Associate Thornton Tomasetti 27 Wormwood Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02210-1668 D +1.617.250.4177 M +1.617.999.0274 AMenchaca@ThorntonTomasetti.com www.ThorntonTomasetti.com From: D

If we believed 1.5 C requires net zero economy by 2050, so we do not get cooked, the matrix is carbon.  Actual performance is important, in operating, embodied, transportation, food, water, products, and nature - the entire economy + ecology with nature

I think there is significant power in certifications that focus on the design community because if designers aren't incentivized to be thinking about sustainability/energy/carbon/resilience before the building is built and operated then we have already lost tremendous opportunities.  For that reason, I think it does make sense to have separate certifications for design/construction and for a building after it is up and running full of occupants. I also agree that those certifications should clearly indicate what they are for, though, much like "Designed to Earned the Energy Star" clarifies it's a step to an actual Energy Star building.  As for LEED's approach to energy modeling, it is burdensome, late in the process, and not always a great predictor of actual performance (as others have commented, we've also found that even when our models do a good job at predicting annual energy, the monthly data does sometimes tell another story).  We use other tools far earlier in design to make smart energy decisions, and for LEED projects also do the "compliance" model for the submission. The LEED model doesn't impact the design much, though, as all the important decisions have already been made.  I'd like to see LEED v5 simply set clear EUI targets by building type and reduce the complexity of the modeling submission in the design phase - I think it would be a welcome development in the marketplace. But I don't know that it will be a good idea to withhold a certification (incentive) from the design/construction community based on something out of their control once the building is put into operation by only certifying buildings after they've operated for a year or more. As others have also noted, however, when we do monitor energy performance over the first few years, we do often see an improvement during that time frame since kinks are being worked out and we do have at least a predictive model of what the building *should* be able to perform at to keep everyone focused on incremental improvements (if necessary and possible)... so if LEED v5 could keep the design community engaged in building operations for the first few years as part of a "full certification", I think that would be a great improvement.  As an aside, I always get nervous, too, that when the conversation about the future of LEED gets dominated by talk about energy (which is wildly important), we run the risk of losing sight of all of the other important human and environmental health aspects that LEED also captures.  We don't need to wait a year or more into operation to acknowledge those design and construction accomplishments. My bottom line is that I would like to see a design/construction focused system remain available and would be interested in working on language for outcome-based credits for energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and any other credits we think could work this way.

I have long dreamed of the day LEED becomes a performance based system, but fear that the USGBC will balk at the possibility of losing market share if pushed too hard. Perhaps we take a more incremental approach such as make Gold and Platinum available to those projects that score the energy and even water points through actual performance - along the lines of the LBC?

Z - I support your suggested approach and I bet the other Sustainable MEP Leaders would support it also.  May I suggest that you take your recommended approach, paste it into a google doc and share the link here, so that others can edit/comment?  Once finalized, we can get all of the members of the Sustainable Leaders peer networks to sign on, representing their firms.  That way we have a united and powerful voice. Regards,
Jacob

complexity is killing us.  I've long lobbied for simpler but harder or more meaningful metrics. doing an 80/20 analysis on the entire system and getting similar system to what you mention by doing the effective things instead of the tail wagging the dog (i put in a bike rack, now everyone will cycle!). my fantasy is that these 5 five metrics would be calculated and included in an online searchable/filterable database. the filters could control for things like building square footage or building type in lieu of the dizzying amount of rating systems. (is this the greenest hospital? how does the project rank compared to 100,000 sf offices?)  the buildings data would need to be publicly available and nerds like us could crowd-source the accuracy of data with up-votes or down-votes.  80% approval rate is validated, less than that is flagged and crowd can review "hot" or "controversial" data. each metric could be weighted through the database so that the top project gets 20 points in that area (5 areas x 20 pts = 100 max score) and lowest project gets 0 points in that area and other projects get scaled between the best metric and worst metric, achieving something between 0-20 points. the data would be good for a couple years and then expire and the building would drop out of the set or upload newer data to remain ranked.  the ranking would always be live.  as new buildings get better, formerly top tier buildings would naturally slide down the list unless they made improvements to their metrics. The live rankings would naturally be an upward competitive spiral to better performance.

1. Earth Area: development density (FAR) is the true metric for public transportation and other site credits. as a species, we likely need to densely develop to leave some space for other species. all the things like subways, buses, bike lanes, mixed use, etc. all follow high FAR and every set of plans already calculates FAR. Manhattan had a subway long before LEED transportation credits...
2. Earth Atmosphere: Energy use isn't the problem, emissions are. projects/buildings should be measured and scaled on absolute CO2e emissions per year. no kWh metrics, no cost metrics...
3. Earth Water: Absolute Water Consumption per year (gal or liter)
4. Earth Ecosystems: absolute waste tonnage per year.
5. Human Health: Water and IAQ monitoring and data

That's it.  If we have dense buildings with zero emissions, minimal water consumption, no waste, and clean air and water for the occupants we'd be in a pretty good place and be leaving space and a cleaner planet for other species.  of course excellent design to achieve these ends and other aspects of great projects would require amazing engineering, design, and building, but let's not micromanage that into professional frustration and client indifference to make LEED just another 4 letter word. ;) I know these all have nuances, but the nuances are killing us. I'll take roughly right over precisely wrong any day. Years ago I got into LEED because of Green Building, I didn't get into green building because of LEED. I feel like sometime USGBC leadership forgets that about many of it's users.  makes me feel like i'm stuck in the song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" by Pete Seeger, expected to unquestioningly agree and promote. Rant over! thanks for allowing the brain dump.    

I wouldn't worry too much about fearing that the USGBC will balk at the possibility of losing market share if pushed too hard...they're doing a pretty good job losing market share already... (see attached graphic) They've been publishing cumulative #s, which hides the rate/year.  

Agreed. One of the reasons we advocate for Net Zero certification is evaluation of the project on a simple metric of performance: on an annual basis, did the project generate its own energy? It's a true or false question. Tamar.

Rant appreciated! (fellow Pete Seeger fan)

And fully supported!

I'm still encountering owners who do appreciate a tool that holds designers and builders "accountable" for designing and building a whole building project (not just energy, but sites, water, indoor air - the whole thing) that is capable of being operated in a high performance manner - precisely what LEED was intended to do way back in the day before it got so tangled up in the red tape that defines so many certification experiences now.  The biggest problem is, in my experience, that the documentation and the review is often so frustrating with nit-picky or incorrect comments that nobody wants to play in that sandbox anymore. Lots of owners are looking for other sandboxes, even if they aren't better.  They just want different at this point. I appreciate everybody's comments about needing to make sure LEED projects perform (I agree!), but I maintain that we need to also have ways to recognize every link in the chain from concept to operation - and the design and construction communities are really important links.  It is important to recognize buildings at the end of construction, and to develop the right metrics to measure the efforts and successes of design and construction teams, and then to separately recognize buildings after they've been operating for some length of time.  There are plenty of measurable, documentable, and verifiable things that designers and builders can do (and are doing) to create green high performance buildings, and we should be writing succinct credits around those things.  If a credit takes more than 1 page to write, it should go in the trash.  Mostly, I'm thankful we are having this conversation.  I'm enjoying all the different ideas and looking forward to seeing more!  

I wonder if the number of LEED AP's is following a similar tapering trend.  USGBC Market Briefs  list total LEED GA's & AP's, but not by year.

My two cents: The graphics that Conor sent show LEED dropping off CAN be interpreted in a different way. If you assume that many anticipated project teams registered for 2009 in 2016 and take the 3-year totals, the years 2013-2015 and 2016-2018 have roughly the same number of registrations. (12,602 v 12,080, respectively). This doesn’t mean everything is right with the LEED system, of course, but the drop is not as precipitous as could be imagined from the graph. Still not growing, though. I am neck-deep in LEED v4/v4.1 implementation – lots of changes, new things, a greater emphasis on what we as architects do (finally!) While it’s a lot of work, it’s what we asked for, no? To be part a larger part of the solution? Idea #1: I agree with Luke and others that carbon needs to be the metric (one could even call it the guiding star). Energy use is a poor proxy for carbon emissions in many buildings.* IMHO LEEDv5 should have a majority of points tied to one of the carbon components below (which includes water…a majority of use is for cooling power plants) An expanded equation of carbon includes embodied/construction carbon, operational carbon, and other kinds. * Embodied includes envelope, structure, continual interior renovations, systems, Landscape, and the construction process. * Operational includes energy use carbon, refrigerants, watergy, maintenance, and landscape sequestration. * While one can associate transportation, food, goods, and other items with a building, they are not the province of the architect typically so I hesitate to include them beyond what LEED already has done in L+T - are there better proxies for transportation carbon or better ideas? * if LEED prohibits combustion, energy use (ie electricity use) could be a reasonable proxy for carbon. I’d suggest for v5 we include all forms of carbon throughout the reasonably anticipatable life of a building using the best available tools using the menu approach LEED has success with already. Whether we do this post-occupancy or pre-occupancy to me is not as relevant as making sure we are telling our industry that we should be aware of all of these components and how they can be optimized in design. Idea #2: For those of you that are suspicious of energy modeling results…I was under the impression that GBCI was doing a decent job (at least by comment quantity) of reviewing energy modeling to make sure they are reasonable. Is that not the case? Is there a compliance option that would provide better alignment between modeling and performance, or are you seeing your clients not operating their buildings very well? I have attempted to love post-occupancy performance as a compliance metric but the deeper I dive into it the less convinced I am it is a good idea. I actually prefer the Arch 2030 Code idea of meeting a design performance threshold and then buying renewable power. The cost balance between additional renewable power and performance provides the incentives for energy use reductions. Could LEEDv5 simply require monitoring-based commissioning instead of drastically changing the infrastructure of GBCI to understand and award post-occupancy performance-based compliance? The infrastructure change is massive and I don’t have time today to list all of the challenges. Or could LEED simply adopt the 2030 Code concept since it is a voluntary system? Or using inspiration from LEED ND where there are stages of compliance, could LEED v5 include ‘design’ credits, ‘construction’ credits, and also ‘measured’ credits. One cannot get Platinum (or Gold) without at least some of the post-occupancy, measured credits? -Kjell From: David Winans

Kjell....I really like this last idea of adding performance/measured points as the only way to get to platinum.

embodied carbon is real but trying to accurately assess it is a red herring. embodied carbon in a material is the operational carbon of that company's extraction, manufacturing and delivery processes. the embodied carbon assessment is backward-looking in time and the data is either unavailable or wildly inaccurate, filled with layered assumptions and averages. even carbon emission data from simple energy use at manufacturing plants is probably years old by the time we see it and the grid mix is changing so fast now, the information is simply just outdated by the time we get it. and do you include some portion of your commute to your office and your office's carbon footprint when you're doing material selection?  wouldn't some of your carbon footprint be attributed to getting that material into the project? we will die in the weeds... I'm more interested in and working on a forward-looking strategy of requesting companies (mine included, yours too!) publicly post their carbon neutrality plans on their websites with timelines.  we know shit is broken.  we need to be fixing it instead of taking time we don't have studying how broken it is. we're the people that care, right? how many of our companies do the follow: Calculate annual Scope 1, 2 & 3 GHG emissions (MTCO2e) and make publicly available on company website. Scope 1 GHG emissions are DIRECT EMISSIONS from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. Scope 1 includes on-site fossil fuel combustion, and fleet fuel consumption. Scope 2 GHG emissions are INDIRECT EMISSIONS from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. Scope 2 includes emissions that result from the generation of electricity, heat or steam purchased by the company from a utility provider. Scope 3 GHG emissions are from sources not owned or directly controlled by the company but related to company activities. Such as 1. Leased Offices where HVAC is included in lease and uses fossil fuels, 2. Employee Vehicles; all annual mileage using national averages,3. Employee Flights Develop a Carbon Neutrality Plan and timeline for the company using the Scope 1, 2 & 3 GHG emissions calculated above and make the plan publicly available on the company website. Issue letters requesting publicly available Carbon Neutrality Plan document or website link from to all project team companies, material manufacturers, vendors, heavy equipment manufacturers and delivery services. If the goal is to make a meaningful impact on climate change, LEED's current trajectory is not going to save us. Adding more complexity and rules to reach higher levels in a system that is losing market share (or at best plateaued) seems to me like the completely wrong direction. I think the data on the LEED v4 rollout verifies that presumption.

… and for consideration in our “walk the talk” suite. Margaret Montgomery, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP Principal NBBJ 223 Yale Avenue North SEATTLE WA 98109 Direct: 206.223.5230 Mobile: 206.200.4526 www.nbbj.com / @nbbjdesign / http://meanstheworld.co From:

Agreed that our industry has a long way to go. LMN uses the coolclimate calculator, with some tweaks, to calculate our footprint encompassing all 3 scopes. https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/calculator I’m happy to walk you through our methodology and the questions we ask ourselves. We then work with a local company, Forterra, to attempt to sequester the carbon. The emissions are published (percentages, not total) as part of our Sustainability Action Plan. https://lmnarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2018-LMN_2030-Sustainability-Action-Plan.pdf (the total GHG is around 700 Tons for 150-ish employees, much of that is flying) This is an important “walk the talk” issue, but we’ve also discovered that our carbon footprint is around 5% of our single largest building’s projected annual carbon. So if we reduced that single building’s carbon by 5% we would have essentially offset all future carbon assuming we hold steady. If we include carbon from all of our buildings our footprint is much less than 1%. If we include our cumulative building’s carbon footprint our office carbon footprint is negligible. We need to focus on the big issues – ie, our projects. Without LEED, many of our projects end up cutting sustainable measures despite our best efforts, including energy/carbon. I agree LEED alone is not going to save us. It is one tool that appeals to a certain group, but it has been EXTREMELY helpful for that group. Every ad in Arch mags over the last decade promised 10 million LEED points from using their product. Commissioning is widespread because of LEED, it helped create a market for compliance energy modeling, low-VOC products, calcs for ASHRAE-55, and other things. It’s a great system for getting products and systems more widespread, so that’s what we should get into v5. IMHO the path forward includes increasingly stringent codes as a minimum, LEED as an above-code system that expands the terminology and practice at a larger scale, and the LBC that entices bleeding edge case studies. It includes companies leading by buying renewable energy and avoiding fossil fuels. It includes activism and serving on boards and commissions, as well as reviewing and testifying on behalf of bills. It also includes utility incentives, voter-driven greening of the electricity grid, and the prohibition of fossil fuels in buildings. It includes investments in battery storage, grid upgrades, etc. It includes calculations for refrigerants (part of LEED already). LEED, with v4, attempted to drive more change but was unable. Nonetheless it is still having a large impact on material transparency right now. The path forward also includes embodied carbon calculations. Embodied carbon is around 50% of many building’s first 30 years. In Washington, in some buildings, because we have a relatively clean grid, the carbon from electricity will never eclipse embodied carbon as the main contribution to climate change. Embodied Carbon calcs, methods, etc. are where energy modeling was 10-20 years ago. A damning report came out a decade ago (https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/lies-damn-lies-and-another-look-leed-energy-efficiency) that suggested that energy use of LEED buildings didn’t match the modeled energy use and was, in some cases, worse that the code baseline (although Gifford is comparing apples and oranges here). Energy modeling has improved. Embodied carbon modeling is in the same place now. We are learning to calculate it, reduce it, baseline it. The EC3 tool https://buildingtransparency.org/dashboard that is coming out in November will help, as does joining the embodied carbon network. http://crm.carbonleadershipforum.info/join-ecn which is a daily discussion of practices, similar to the energy modeling-focused Bldg-Sim list that has helped make energy modeling a more accurate tool during the design process. The amazing thing about this is that we – architects – are actually leading this process! -Kjell From: Conor McGuire

Thanks for sharing the Coolclimate calculator and your recent SAP report Kjell.  I'm in the process of collecting our data to calculate MG2's carbon footprint for all three scopes, so really appreciate any and all tips. That said, thanks for everyone's ideas on where LEED v5 could/should be going.  I just completed the LEED v4 certification of a grocery store and I would add that the enhanced refrigerant management credit is under-rated credit given the GWP of refrigerant leakages (HFC's) and it's "1,000 to 9,000 times greater capacity to warm the atmosphere than carbon dioxide" according to Paul Hawken's book, "Drawdown" https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management. So conversations I've been having with engineers is how all the operational energy saved on a building could potentially be wiped out by refrigerant leakages or lake of good refrigerant management regulations.  Fortunately our project was able to meet the GreenChill Silver practices for all the commercial food service equipment - which was far more complex than the team anticipated.This is a huge topic IMHO and there should be a focus on finding better refrigerants (less GWP) or using natural alternatives, and using less cooling where possible.  It's clearly a challenge. Cindy

Hi Kjell and all, Like many of you are stating I believe carbon (Green House Gases in general) is the critical metric to track. I am attaching a spreadsheet I developed many years ago for a carbon neutral design studio that I taught for several years in which students had to design a project and use carbon as the metric. It was a topic studio and it was called CND Studio. I remember other faculty asking me why it had that weird and ugly name. I used different tools to measure carbon emissions from operation, materials, waste and water and then put them all together in the spreadsheet, I can change the life of the building, the dirtiness of the electricity, how much is renewable etc. I can also add transportation and see the effects of placing the same building in a dense urban area or in a suburb. The tools I used were very simple but could be substituted by more precise and sophisticated tools, I have students use Sefaira or HEED for energy modeling. I have not had a chance to improve and have only used some parts of it in practice, because we are mostly dealing with carbon from operations and embodied at CRTKL. I also want to emphasize that it is VERY imperfect and needs MUCH work, however what I like is that I can visualize the impact of different sources and create pie charts etc. Does anybody have a similar method to include carbon from different sources in one tool? I believe we need something like this. If you have a chance take a look at some of the student work below, please remember that they did this in about 8 weeks while taking other classes. https://la2030studio.net/2017/03/10/kr-yy-final-presentation/ Brie did much more detailed work as part of her master’s thesis. https://www.acsa-arch.org/programs-events/competitions/competition-archives/2017-2018-cote-top-ten-for-students/2017-2018-cote-top-ten-winners/prescriptive-hydrologies Thanks Pablo Pablo La Roche Ph.D. LEED AP BD+C Associate Vice President Sustainable Design Lead +1 213 633 1194 Direct | +1 213 631 6203 Cell F

Sorry, as many lists this one does not seem to support attachments. If anybody is interested in the spreadsheet email me at pablo.laroche@crtkl.com I will forward directly to you. Thanks Pablo Pablo La Roche Ph.D. LEED AP BD+C Associate Vice President Sustainable Design Lead +1 213 633 1194 Direct | +1 213 631 6203 Cell

Hi Pablo, Actually, you CAN share attachments with this group. You just have to go to the online forum to post them; you can't send them via email. Just follow the link below labeled "Full Discussion". It will prompt you to pick a folder to put them in. Nadav
 

Thanks Nadav Good to know, I am not used to going to the forum, I will post later today… Best, Pablo Pablo La Roche Ph.D. LEED AP BD+C Associate Vice President Sustainable Design Lead +1 213 633 1194 Direct | +1 213 631 6203 Cell F

Kjell suggested: "Could LEEDv5 simply require monitoring-based commissioning instead of drastically changing the infrastructure of GBCI to understand and award post-occupancy performance-based compliance? The infrastructure change is massive and I don’t have time today to list all of the challenges. Or could LEED simply adopt the 2030 Code concept since it is a voluntary system?" I think moving monitoring based commissioning to prerequisite status is a GREAT idea!  The power of raising awareness about energy (and water) consumption should not be underestimated.

I like both of these ideas as well – taking what has worked with LEED and giving it a solid push towards where the industry needs to go. On the monitoring based commissioning, the pre-req could be structured to have the infrastructure and a plan (some skepticism as to how its implemented), a credit for connection to ARC or some other public platform to share the results. -C Chris Flint Chatto Associate AIA, LEED AP BD+C Principal ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP T 503.863.2324 E chris.chatto@zgf.com 1223 SW Washington Street, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 F

  I’m willing to help assemble comments and crate a structured document, Z. Unless you’ve already started something of course.  There are lots of good ideas already here but we also have some gaps to fill in. (E.g. we may have stalled out on the other metrics and focused too much on energy and carbon).  Relying only on data from ARC is somewhat troublesome because the gathering mechanisms currently in place - especially for Transportation, Waste, and IAQ - are rife for misrepresentation and inaccuracy.  Unfortunately this is largely reflective of the marketplace and ability - or inability - of most buildings to report data beyond utility consumption. (Especially in our market). COTE metrics, WELL Performance Testing Methods - and it sounds like LBC too - would all be reasonable proxies to award additional performance points and incentive project design teams to stay engaged and measure actual performance.  Making M&V-based commissioning more than just a sub-option to an optional credit ultimately only worth 1 point is a a great idea as well. The language here would have to become more specific, I feel, as the review and compliance with Cx for LEED is somewhat “too easy” currently. Of course this can’t all be done now but so think we can work to compile some recommendations that close the loop on the design intent of BD+C and build a bridge to certification of proven performance. 

Looks like anyone with the link can currently access the file, but (at least I) don't have write access. Submitted a request (though perhaps this is because I'm logged in with my gmail account. Looking forward to reading through and commenting.  As we all know, the operation of buildings remains an area for improvement... because what do the LEED-certified and non-certified buildings in the study mentioned above have in common? A market lacking skilled building operators and educational continuity from design to construction and operations. There's not currently a mechanism in LEED to reward design teams and contractors for following through on (or giving good) Owner Training and operational checks. Something to think more about and add to the document perhaps... 

I beg you to reconsidering adding prereqs and any LEED v5 update.  We need more projects participating, not fewer.  Prereqs should be eliminated and every project should be eligible for rankings (not certification, but rankings), so we can see how bad they are. And the rankings should be free and relatively easy.  Counter-intuitively by creating such a high barrier for inclusion, you create a situation where projects can just say "well, we're not doing that prereq so we're not ranked, but we're awesomely green anyway."  eliminating prereqs eliminates excuses for not participating. LEED-elitists like ourselves might care about all the credit details, but i think we're in the minority. and I think the loss of momentum in LEED registrations and certifications is signaling this very strongly. we should be paying attention to that! USGBC should not be hiding it! The good ideas discussed here can ENABLE better results, but they don't create them.  For example, you can have a terrible building with monitor-based commissioning and an excellent building without monitor-based commissioning. No team accidentally makes a great building and all these tools will be used to create great buildings, but we can unintentionally micro-manage the process into irrelevancy. I fear the perfect system that no one cares about...and on second thought, would that really be the perfect system if barely anyone cared? I don't see how adding cost and complication is going to increase market participation in LEED projects. please consider simplification for the system and credits (metrics?) and using existing information easily obtained so that MORE projects participate.  Network effects are working against us now,rather than with us, and that's why LEED has lost it's mojo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect I'm really an upbeat guy.  but i'm sad for LEED.

Oh wow...what a concept! The LEED-EZ...you should run with that!

Shouldn't it just be LEED Z? Get Outlook for Android

Or even better, LEED-Z

Z - I think the outcomes goal is what we're seeing more of our clients moving towards, regardless of where LEED is headed. They've been doing LEED for years, but now question it's value (it's not a differentiator if everybody's doing it), and they feel like they have to go through a ton of bureaucratic paperwork to get something that doesn't really mean it's going to operate as a sustainable building. I'm increasingly seeing our clients savvy to the idea that performance is what really matters, not predictions. 

One of the nice things about the performance-based standards is that they are so much simpler to certify. You simply provide evidence that you hit the mark or you didn't. Of course, while certification may be simpler, we know that the process of designing, building, monitoring, and verifying performance hits the target is more challenging - and potentially risky, which I think is why some designers are slow to embrace it. But if that means that as an industry, we're shifting effort/costs more towards ensuring that building *actually* performs, I think that's a great thing... Even if it means less $$$ going to pay people to validate what a building *might* do. 

When Z asks us to imagine what a 1 page LEED form would be, that's roughly the type of thinking that led to my suggested simplification re-vamp.  by making a system with far fewer metrics, which are either publicly available or easily calculated, and having it in a self-cleansing publicly available online database.  projects with old data expire (2 or 3 year grace period?) and the rankings would auto update with the new data set. It could be like a wikipedia for buildings.  we wouldn't even need permission to add projects, similar to how bios are added to wikipedia via crowd-sourcing rather than autobiography.  many high-population places in the US are creating building energy use disclosure ordinances (https://www.imt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/IMT-Benchmarking-Map-CityCountyState-CURRENT-062019.jpg).  using that Public energy data and public FAR data would allow a significant number of projects to be entered and achieve 0-40 potential points of 100. building owners interested in increasing their score and ranking higher would be incentive to add the missing private data and or implement sustainable design/remodel/buildings and use all the awesome knowledge and tools we have and are developing.

1. (Public) Earth Area: development density (FAR) is the true metric for public transportation and other site credits. as a species, we likely need to densely develop to leave some space for other species. all the things like subways, buses, bike lanes, mixed use, etc. all follow high FAR and every set of plans already calculates FAR. Manhattan had a subway long before LEED transportation credits...
2. (Public for many large US cities) Earth Atmosphere: Energy use isn't the problem, emissions are. projects/buildings should be measured and scaled on absolute CO2e emissions per year. no kWh metrics, no cost metrics...
3. (not public yet, but maybe someday? especially if we advocate for it?) Earth Water: Absolute Water Consumption per year (gal or liter)
4. (not public yet, but maybe someday? especially if we advocate for it?) Earth Ecosystems: absolute waste tonnage per year.
5. (not public yet, but maybe someday? especially if we advocate for it?) Human Health: Water and IAQ monitoring and data

many state and local govs are skeptical about adding requirements for LEED certifications in to codes and ordinances (rightly so, who know wtf LEED is going to do next) but a system similar to above could encourage more state and locals to require disclosure of energy use, and maybe add metrics of disclosure of water and waste, which would enable more buildings to be ranked, which would increase transparency and competition. Since there is no specific reference to a baseline energy code or ASHRAE blah blah blah, a system like this wouldn't need updating to remain relevant.  as codes get better and buildings get better, an online live database like this is intentionally set up so that the goal posts move as buildings get better.  a LEED platinum building from 20 years ago can't rest on it's laurels.  to remain in the platinum tier it would need to perform! lastly, I think project teams would start to be held accountable if their modeled LEED platinum projects (or whatever level) all dropped out of the rankings once the modeling data grace period ended and actual data was required to remain ranked.  project teams where modeled data best matched actual performance would quickly develop a great reputation and perhaps the world could learn from them and we could all benefit.

Conor - I like where you're headed, but struggling with the ideal of tying FAR into an overall certification program. Having it as a stand-alone value or certification is fine, but we run into a lot of issues with rural projects that go through LEED, because of the site credits. I get what LEED is trying to do - incentivize density over sprawl, cut down on single occupant vehicle trips, etc. But I would argue that rural communities aren't sprawl. They are the source of our food and our cities couldn't exist with out them. In many ways, anybody who's spent time in one of these towns can witness everyday behaviors that make for a compelling case study in sustainability. 

These places need schools, hospitals, fire stations, and community centers, and I would love to see a standard that is inclusive of them, not exclusive. 

I've worked on a lot of rural projects. Even in some of the reddest of red counties, we've found clients that want to do a low/zero energy, healthy, resilient building. But when they are forced to use a standard and achieve a certain certification level (this is the case in any state that mandates LEED certification for publicly-funded buildings), they perceive themselves as being punished by the standard because of some of the sustainable sites language. Which to a degree they are. 

Back to my previous post, this is somewhat why we're mixing and matching performance criteria (and certification programs more). Because we're increasingly having a hard time communicating the value of one program that tries to do all things for all projects. That's why I think the transparency you mention is key, and should be paired with some flexibility. That would allow us to view the site location of a brand new corporate headquarters built on prime farmland at the edge of the city differently than a K-12 school that serves a whole community in farm country. 

Pete - Density is key if we're going to leave some space for other species and live in lower energy lifestyles.  traditionally (pre Interal combustion engine) rural areas had little hamlets that were dense villages or towns nodes with the rural gaps between because that was low energy development.  however, the beauty that I see in an online filterable database is that you can compare like with like.  you'd probably not compare your mentioned rural projects FAR with One World Trade Center in NYC, so you could filter and control for state, city, size, type, etc. and don't forget that those rural projects might not excel at FAR category but they do have far greater opportunities (area) for on-site renewable energy and potential ZERO NET ENERGY/ energy positive projects which would hugely benefit them in the emissions category! :) what chance does One World Trade Center have to be net positive? :) and potentially an advantage with better water and air quality, right? because of this type of balance, i don't see this approach as exclusive of those rural areas.  to reduce emission, those areas likely would need net positive buildings to offset the emissions related to single occupancy vehicle transportation. 

Hi all: Been laying low, but thought I might chime in here. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the current volunteer Chair of the LEED Steering Committee. We (LSC) are actively working on LEED Development and will be the eventual recipients of whatever proposal you put together. I share your concerns about the effectiveness of LEED BDC, and am a signatory to the letter asking for a more aggressive approach to carbon reductions in LEED. I heartily encourage this group to submit a proposal, and can assure you it will be taken very seriously. We hear a lot from the other side of the market, telling us if we go too fast we’ll lose our audience and kill LEED. Counter arguments, telling us the market needs, and is ready for more stringency must be made. I’d like to offer a few thoughts and comments that may provide some context for your proposals and some insight as to where LEED is headed. 1) By focusing on BDC we miss a lot of the impact that LEED has had, and what it means to be a LEED project. There are roughly 2.7 Billion (with a B) square feet of LEED Certified space that have earned Certification through actual performance using the EB:OM rating system. 2) Currently, there is a voluntary recertification program for LEED projects - all LEED Projects: EBOM, BDC, IDC - offering recertification through the Arc platform. Uptake on this has been slow so far, and very few people seem to be aware of it. But this is a simple pathway to hold BDC projects accountable, and it would be great if the market started looking for recertification of BDC projects. 3) To that end, it’s likely that BDC/IDC Certifications will get an expiration date, with a requirement to recertify, in the very near future. This idea has been on the table a long time, but the concern is that the market is not ready for this. Tell us if you think your clients want this, please. 4) My long-term vision is that a LEED Building is one that continuously earns its certification through ongoing performance. Projects can enter the LEED realm through a variety of pathways including BDC/IDC and EBOM, but ultimately their actual performance determines their rating. In this vision, you can think of BDC almost like a “pre-certification.” I do think it’s important that there is some sort of reward at the end of construction - my own experience is that standards that reward projects based on a few years of operation tend to motivate facilities folks, but have little impact on architects and designers. Anyway, I look forward to hearing more good ideas.

Christopher and all, y'all, et al:  Thanks for the helpful context and reminder of the impact of EB O&M. It's encouraging to hear there's support for an expiration date and performance-based ratings. Our conundrum, our greatest challenge might be the tension between: 
1) Our shared sense of urgency (and desire to push as hard as we can),  and:  
2) The need to provide a program and service that more people will gladly adopt.  I think we all appreciate the potential for LEED and rating systems to motivate clients and design teams, and the benefit of "packaged" measures for those who are coming from a position of "just tell me what I need to do" or swinging an axe in the name of "value engineering."  A big part of LEED's appeal is it's potential to deliver a better performing building, provide better QA/QC, better user experience... let's keep looking for those 80/20 moves that return bigger benefits for modest effort - and not chase our tails on minutia.  Within this group, we appreciate complexity, we want to push the envelope, but to move the middle of the market we need a varied set of tools and incentives. And some should be really simple.  Codes often have both a prescriptive path and a performance path - let's consider this approach as well.   Design and construction teams are often isolated from operations and performance - a gap reinforced by fee structures, work scope, liability, lack of knowledge/ engagement, reputational anxiety...  the impetus to address both design *and* performance offers a huge challenge and a huge opportunity to bridge that gap. I wouldn't mind some "market transformation" that gets designers and facility staff talking and walking more talks and walks. Is that the next big silo?   My two cents...   

Hi Chris - A major flaw that has not been mentioned yet is how extremely horrible USGBC/LEED's user experience is. The websites are terrible.  Along the same lines, I was already familiar with Arc Skoru (mainly from the marketing pushes coming from USGBC).  I spent some additional time this morning on it's website (https://arcskoru.com/) and don't feel that I know much more or that i'm excited about encouraging clients to join it.  Where is the data for the arc buildings that are already in there?  There is nothing there (that i could find) that makes me think "this is really cool, interesting, and useful!" If i'm looking in the wrong place, please provide the correct link.  and please PLEASE don't tell me to set up an account and log in just to look around.  yes, if i'm adding or modifying data i should have an account, but looking around should be easy and interesting! Has LEED /arc considered the benefits of following Tesla's model of having essentially $0 market budget and focus on making the product and user experience top rate.  If the product and experience are excellent, users all become it's marketers. somebody organizing data better is 'new buildings institute' that created a ZNE online database (https://newbuildings.org/resource/getting-to-zero-database/). it's a website that is fun to be on and can lead to learning from/about other projects. it's not perfect, but at least it's fun! Advice that I try and follow when considering my own sunk costs may be helpful for the LEED Steering Committee.  It's very important to me that LSC is successful! "When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be." - Lao Tzu

I completely agree with everything Conor said below. The user experience has to be better than the marketing. I’ll also add that our clients don’t run screaming from a rating system because it is too stringent – they run because it is too bloated, confusing, time consuming, unclear, and costly without value. From:

Conor: I agree with you about the LEED customer experience. Adopting the Adobe forms for LEED Online was a fatal mistake. I can only offer two things: First, it’s gotten better. Reviews are more consistent than previous, and the process is more transparent. We’ve been part of the Proven Provider program for a while, and have found that to be a huge improvement. Second, it’s going to get better. V4.1will not use adobe forms, and other forms are being converted to html. Regarding Arc, I’m not sure what you are looking for. It’s not meant to be a project database. Data entered into Arc is not public data. The NBI ZNE Database is good - Arc is not trying to be that. Arc generates a score based on six parameters: 1) Transportation survey results 2) annual water consumption 3) annual energy consumption (which gets scored based on source energy per person, and carbon emissions per person) 4) waste - both total waste generated, and percent recycled 5) indoor air quality results based on air testing 6) occupant satisfaction survey results Arc has the built in infrastructure to issue and evaluate the surveys. Other data can be entered manually or imported from a variety of platforms (Portfolio Manager, Measurabl, etc.) From this data a 0-100 score is generated. Projects that also meet LEEDv4.1 EBOM prerequisites can certify with this score. Projects that are already LEED Certified can use this score to re-certify. Any certified or registered project already has free access to Arc, and can calculate a score. They only pay if they decide to go ahead and re-certify.