What's the problem?

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!

Nadav,

We have known each other for many years. It is the consultants, like myself, who have been marketing LEED free-of-charge for the USGBC that have helped grow LEED to what is today.

If the change was appropriate, say 25-50%, that is okay. But, 500% increase effective in less than 2-weeks?

You need to consider the impacts to the large number of small business working on LEED projects. The membership fees used to be based on gross income. Now it is a flat rate.

Little company = Big Cost Increase
Large company = Cost Savings

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.

Susan,

I have marketed LEED to owners, and one thing that was very helpful was telling them that they got a discount on behalf of the USGBC membership I held.

There is no cost savings for firms like mine, LEED consulting, not full building design architecture. The USGBC membership fee is a cost 100% absorbed by my business.

It would be a huge business disadvantage to not offer a LEED fee discount. The change is biased towards largest companies.

$1,500 was the membership fee paid by companies with gross receipts between $5-25M. Firms, like mine, under $250k gross paid $300.

My small business, with 1/20th to 1/100th, the income of a large firm has the same cost.

A firm that grossed $50M paid $3,500 and now pays $1,500.

Nadav,

EBN would not the company it is without LEED. The USGBC would not be the company it grew to without EBN.

The changed fees benefit firms grossing more than $25M per year. The largest impact falls on the smallest business, those under $250k, five times the prior cost.

If my firm grossed more than $1M per year I wouldn't grouse.

The USGBC can expect the smallest LEED consulting firms will be put at a competitive disadvantage, or they will simply cease to exist.

The fee updates should have been an incremental change, not one fell swoop like this. This would reduce the gripping, and also benefit the USGBC. The way it has been done only damages the USGBC further.

I also wonder why the letter from the USGBC CEO did not explain that to receive the same membership benefits a firm needed to upgrade to a higher membership level. The letter is written to be positive, but what is really going on is a huge membership fee increase for all forms grossing under $5M.

I would have completely missed this if I didn't follow through and check what the new pricing was. It is good business practice to know what your costs area. I was shocked to see the extent of the change. It is an unexpected loss on the net income side of the ledger sheet.

What also struck me about the new fee is, it is the same amount of money I donated to send eight kids living in a disadvantaged area --parents with minimal income-- to a learning camp at one of the most highly regarded LEED Platinum projects there is.

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.

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.

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 BuildingAlso visit us at Booth 1633S.

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?

A discussion about the history or LEED

Originally, the original board members of the USGBC believed in the concept of "deep-pockets." Membership fees and the cost of certification were skewed intentionally. It is also interesting to note that the USGBC was originally based in the California Bay Area.

Deep-pockets A&E firms pay more because they get more, and better, LEED projects, and have more gross income. Deep-pockets project owner pay more because the cost is "noise" level for large projects.

Small-pocket A&E and consulting firms pay less because they get less, and often not the best of the LEED projects, and they don't make much money. Small projects, and small firms, might otherwise steer clear of LEED. The "real" cost of certification would be prohibitive.

The difference in membership fees and certification fees grew from a 6:1 to a 10:1 difference. I don't remember exactly when in time, but more or less, with the release of LEED NC v2.2.

Moving forward, the USGBC relocated to Washington D.C. Since that time the USGBC and LEED have operated, more and more, as a "beltway" type of organization. Increasing paperwork and an ever growing number of rules are now the norm.

As part of the new norm, the USGBC is reconsidering the "deep-pockets" 10:1 cost difference. It is true that the the "deep-pockets" penalty was too steep a ramp. It likely has been a complaint of owners and A&E firms for many years.

In trying to fix the "deep-pockets" problem, the USGBC decided to go with a more flat fee structure. The 10:1 teeter-totter drops to 1:1.

Well, the drop trying to correct a fee structure that was too steep is itself too steep. The original USGBC board was correct. Small firms and building owners needed to be encouraged to consider LEED as cost-reasonable. The current USGBC board and management are also correct. The large difference in fees paid is too large.

So there you have it. The correct answer, as I stated before, is a place in-between the the old and the new fee structures. What I call, Provisional Silver, is a reasonable solution; something in-between that protects small firms and owners.

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.

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.

No, the correct way to fix the LEED problem, which is the increasing cost of the reviews, is to fix the review process.

The "prove it to me" review method has to go. It is that simple.

Increase fees = Reduced projects = Less Income

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.

The membership fee could also be taken as the cost of 200 car fuel tank refills for T. Boone Pickens; Texas billionaire energy investor. He pays less than $1 per "gallon" of gas for one of his personal cars. Less than $8 per tank.

He drives from his home to his office in a Honda Civic GX. The car runs on natural gas and fills up to about 8 gasoline gallon equivalents.

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