EA PR2

Green building rating systems need to balance performance requirements against market acceptance. For existing buildings (excluding refurbishments) getting the balance right is critical for market penetration and improvements to the building stock overall. Quoting from Rob Watson’s 2011 green building market report “The EBOM standard is the key to the ability of LEED to transform the building sector, yet we know very little about why projects are not certifying, let alone not registering.” In our experience for buildings outside the US the main barrier to take up is meeting the whole building (landlord + tenant) energy performance prerequisite. Tenant consumption can exceed 50% and relationship between parties not conducive to co-operating on overall improvements. Excluding older buildings, where upgrading of main plant is economically viable, energy targets need to be achieved within modest O&M budgets and within the aforementioned constraint. Setting ‘elitist’ entry levels simply deters certification. Increasing the Energy Star entry level to 75 is not helpful. Alternatives, such as the 20% savings (maybe even lower!) should be retained. Saving even 10% on a EUI of 400 is a gain for the building stock equal to 20% on a EUI of 200. Besides energy, many LEED EBOM credits requiring tenant participation do not reflect the effort or cost to achieve compliance. LEED should look at the potential for a LEED EBOM equivalent to LEED CS, focusing on what building operators/landlords can achieve without tenant participation.