New Plaintiffs

Seems like Mr. Äsk ought to be better acquainted with the lawsuit to which his name is attached. "EBOM? What?"

No question it's not just about energy savings. In fact, many LEED buildings use MORE energy than they would if they did not have LEED features. And they certainly cost a lot more, and there's not nearly enough acknowledgement of that in the propaganda. His issue is that many owners think they'll get a building with lower operating costs, which frankly is all most of them are interested in. LEED runs counter to that in many ways. Now that LEED 3 requires collecting data after construction, the extent to which these buildings really do (not) save money will be better understood. My bet is, they don't save much, and the owner is in most cases never going to recover the significant cost associated with that pretty plaque in the lobby. Frankly, it's largely a boondoggle at this point, with greater emphasis on the USGBC's cash flow than the actual science of building better buildings. --- Jason Chenard, PE - Emphatically Not LEED Certified

LEED certification certainly has changed the construction landscape; an industry that was typically based on cost per ft and cost reduction has new evaluation criteria. Green buildings are evaluated on longer term return on investments as well as intangible benefits for consuming looking for a healthy equilibrium between consumption and sustainability. However, given the recent claims of Henry Gifford, Mechanical engineer turned USGBC critic, that LEED building use 29% more energy than CBECS building when comparing newer buildings (2000 to 2003 construction) it seems that evaluation criteria will become even more important.
Unfortunately the data analysis stinks of a greenwashing and with the negative publicity that Gifford is evoking negates the pioneer work that USGBC has done to ensure that sustainability and construction are not polar opposites. LEED, still in its infancy as a certification model is going through the usual growing pains, figuring out meaningful evaluation criteria and metrics. Even though I agree with Gifford’s data analysis, a $100M lawsuit from an individual who does not own any LEED certified property and is not AP certified begs the question how was he personally harmed by USGBC’s assertions that LEED certified building are more energy efficient. Rather than take the adversarial approach Gifford has chosen how about a partnership to create better evaluation criteria that truly measure energy saving effectiveness.

(LEED certified that the 122 building they surveyed used approx. 69,000 BTU’s of energy per square foot compared to 91,000 BTU’s of energy per square foot leading to 24% energy efficiency for LEED certified buildings. Gifford, after analyzing the data further found that USGBC had used a sample size for comparison that didn’t fit well given more recent data and used a more favorable average (median) rather than mean to justify LEED building reduction in energy consumption. )

read the USGBC website under 'What LEED is ...'

'LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.'

'providing third party verification' ? No way - people are lying - especially on materials. in order to claim this, the USGBC has to start an on-site invoice inspection and audit system. Submitting fake cutsheets or omitting non-compliant products is lying and don't kid yourself - when incentives or client payment is at stake - it happens!

and with respect to energy, water and carbon ...
'aimed at improving' is the key phrase. 'aimed' but not really doing? and 'improving' over what? For energy that is ASHRAE 90.1 appendix G performance rating system energy modeling method - which is NOT a good standard for overall building energy use and does not guarantee a LOW energy building.
All ASHRAE 90.1 G and the modeling method does is ensure the components are efficient and that you've improved the performance from the Hummer you started with. And it is entirely possible - in fact - now the fashion - to put efficient components together to make a terribly inefficient product. Think of a building in a cold climate that is 40% window to wall ratio with R-5 glass.
good windows - bad building.

If the USGBC wants to fix this problem - they don't have legal room to wait 10 years until all the data is in. Do it NOW with the following measures:
1. Require 2 years of full energy and water data (yes, I know, people use energy not buildings ... but still.... what is the goal... you can't separate the beauty from the beast). normalize for weather per degree days, document operating mistakes, etc. Match the energy data up to the EPA Benchmark system for building type, usage, and climate, and measure k/btu/sf/yr. (LEED EBOM does this - NC and CI do not). A building that is not EPA Energy Star (75 percentile) should not be LEED certified. And the USGBC and the EPA MUST work together to expand the database. Energy Star (or better) should be required BEFORE certification.

2. Measure energy or source carbon with a nuclear/environmental penalty - not energy cost. Design team and consultants gerrymander energy rates to maximize EAc1 points. ie: 'let's use a flat electrical rate to minimize the gigantic summer afternoon peak load penalty from these monstrous west facing windows- etc. etc.' go ahead and throw in another credit for shaving peak loads to limit new production on the bigger scale.

3. Plug the energy holes: EQ and EA credits go against each other and high levels of ventilation cost energy in most climates and are most likely contributing to the high energy usage of LEED buildings. Please let's get rid of EQ Credit 2 - we do NOT need 30% more ventilation than ASHRAE 62.1 2007! All this credit does is cause dollar signs to appear in the eyes of the mechanical subcontractor looking to bigger your system without making it more effective. Make that an established ID credit for mechanic shops, nail salons, and smoking bars (oh sorry - no smoking as per EQp2 - and no getting around it either by pretending the ground floor 'casino' is a fit-out to be built later - shame on you Las Vegas!).

I doubt any professional doing green buildings can claim they have been hurt by LEED because they are not a LEED AP. In all professions there are experienced good but un-certified practitioners who know more than the person with the fancy letters after their name. That is life.

But there will be lawsuits from building owners who are not getting what they think LEED sold them. And then, there will be an expanded array of defendants in those lawsuits...

USGBC/GBCI - fix this NOW and we will help you - we are locked into this system by YOUR marketing campaign and we would rather do green buildings then go down in this sinking ship of your design.

Michele Helou (no letters here today)

Michele, you are a God-like entity. To summarize: What she said.

I would also add that the requirement that ALL air passing thru ANY mech eqpt must be MERV 13 filtered to get that credit is counterproductive. It effectively disqualifies, for example, wall and ceiling mounted split systems, which are perhaps the most efficient available equipment for some applications. It also precludes the use of such standard equipment as cabinet heaters. My response to this has been to provide the ASHRAE minimum filters on my projects, to reduce fan energy use, since I can't get the filtration credit anyway because of this ridiculous interpretation. Was this USGBC's intent?

And the M&V credit is a hopeless kluge. Set a reasonable minimum for metering, and then monitor the building. The data gleaned from a year or two of trending would be very valuable, especially if it were all gathered in one place for further analysis. Why is this not part of the credit? USGBC could use it definitively quantify how well it's all working.

And what is the point of the exercise of using hundreds of engineering hours to continuously adjust the computer model during the first year of occupancy? Exactly what would one do with the $250,000 worth of Trane Trace simulations after the engineers and building managers have spent all that time on them?

These are great comments about the foibles of the increased ventilation, M&V, mega filtration, and energy modeling protocols. I hope you all issued public comments for the proposed changes to LEED last month??

thanks Jason - and you are right
the MERV13 requirement for EQc5 does not make sense for the majority of applications. Obviously, the intent is to filter outdoor pollutants. So perhaps they make sense for New York City hospitals or condominiums (although residential buildings are rarely fully mechanically ventilated anyway).
A while ago, a mechanical contractor I know investigated a public school which achieved LEED Gold 5 years ago! They were wondering why on earth the energy bills were 3 times higher than any other school in town per sf. My mechanical contractor friend suspected the reason - he had them look at the filters which hadn't been changed for 3 years (public school cutbacks you know)! You guessed it - 4" of gunk on the MERV 13's blocking the air flow creating a huge pressure drop! Again, high filtration could be an innovation for certain regions and building types.
and to Jenny Carney - no I missed the comment period last time but I've made these comments before.
Changes often take a large group of people saying the same thing.

It seems like the "real" building scientists at our US government energy labs think energy modeling has some value. Maybe you naysayers ought to let them know that they are just wasting their time and our tax dollars??????
""Building researchers at NREL support the U.S. Department of Energy's goal to create the technology and knowledge base for cost-effective zero-energy buildings by 2025. A zero energy building produces as much energy on-site as it consumes on an annual basis, primarily through energy efficiency with any small remaining loads met by photovoltaics and other solar energy technologies."[1]

"However, DOE's zero energy buildings goal cannot be met solely through research to improve energy performance of individual building components (e.g., windows, appliances, heating and cooling equipment, lighting). It also requires a revolutionary approach to building design and operation that can achieve 70%-80% reductions in load coupled with careful integration with onsite renewable energy supplies as well as thermal and electrical storage."[1]

"A revolutionary design, in turn, requires a powerful energy simulation tool that supports evaluation of new zero energy building demand-reduction and energy-supply technologies. The simulation tool must also support various decision points throughout the life cycle of building design and operation. These new software tools calculate the behavior of building control systems and the resultant impact on energy use, peak demand, equipment sizing and occupant comfort to provide performance insights that were previously unavailable to the building industry."[1]

"Energy simulation software tools for evaluation of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability in buildings are being developed by researchers at NREL. The energy analysis tools listed below include energy analysis software used for both residential and commercial energy performance simulation."[1]"

Wow. That's a lot of cut and paste, man!

It was not my intent to suggest that building modeling is not valuable. It is extremely important. But once the building is built, why spend countless engineering hours at the keyboard twiddling with the sim?

If the building is not performing well, go to the building management system, do some trending, find the problems, and fix them. Getting the E20/Trace/Blast/eQuest/Whatever model just perfect doesn't have any payback at that point, and the effort would be better channeled to optimizing the systems that are in the building and running.

CA has some nice free tools (not $250,000) to do energy analysis. http://www.cacx.org/resources/rcxtools/spreadsheet_tools.html

Jason,
An article, slightly dated, you may find worth the time to read. http://www.taylor-engineering.com/downloads/articles/ASHRAE%20Journal%20...
It seems to explain the reasoning behind some of the difficult energy- indoor air quality trade offs.

Thanks, will take a look. Coincidentally, I don't have time right now, as I'm doing a building energy simulation.