GBCI doubling LEED project registration fees

Fair amount of thread drift here.

Getting back to the original topic, I don't know why GBCI raised the fees. Could be more representative of the actual cost to the organization - GBCI is not a charity.

Also, LEED registration and certification remain a small fraction of the overall soft costs of documenting that you are doing the right thing. Seems a small price to pay for 3rd party credibility.

Another point to consider is what the value of the registration is to the project. In our neck of the woods, we see a fair number of projects who register, advertise the fact when marketing the project in order to get maximum use of the brand recognition of LEED, then fail to follow through and certify. This is a cynical mis-use of LEED registration and, from that perspective, LEED registration is an incredible deal and should arguably cost more.

SFI is funded in great part by the forestry industry. Additionally, SFI supports clear-cutting, logging of old growth and endangered forests, and tree plantations. This impacts everyone the World over, including Georgia.

This is quite a jump all at once and will discourage most smaller projects from registering until absolutely certain they will be pursuing LEED, especially given the current economic climate. The increase in the design phase review makes some sense, as that's a fairly substantial and time-intensive review. However, registration is just listing the project and granting a project team access to the online tools, so the scope of the increase (100%) is a bit alarming. I wonder if the resources expended in handling all the bugs and development snags in the launch of LEED online v3.0 precipitated this; perhaps also corporate underwriting is down due to the economy.

This is disappointing! It will be much harder to get clients to spend even more money on certification when they have such restricted budgets for schools to begin with.

Patrick,

The answer to your question is "not much". We displaced those indigenous people a long time ago. But the fact remains that there are still some populations who live in and rely on forest ecosystems in a traditional manner, and those relationships should be respected. The fact that SFI not only fails to do so, but fails to understand that there is any reason they should, is a powerful indicator of where their priorities lie.

You can call it "PC" if you want to. I call it respecting the rights of indigenous people and ways of life that are much more closely tied to nature than are our own. Sustainability is not (should not be) about salving the consciences of rich westerners, or ensuring that they will have sufficient energy resources to maintain their (wasteful) ways of life, or protecting the profits of corporations. It is ultimately about the challenge of living in harmony with, rather than in opposition to, nature. In that context, SFI's expressed attitude is totally unacceptable.

It's getting more difficult to support USGBC when they do things like this. I've been very involved at the Chapter level for several years, and now am stepping away from those activities out of frustration with USGBC National. This really does look like a money grab on their part.

Most troubling is the fact that, unlike changes to the rating system, registering the project prior to January 11th does not prevent you from paying the more expensive review fees later on... I don't have exact confirmation of this statement, but a blog reader brought it to my attention and from what I can tell it's true.

Sounds like a very PC comments. What does that have to do with landowners in Georgia, etc.?

"There are other "Green Building" programs out there. Green Globes accepts all the forestry certifications and utilizes LCA throughout the system."

To me, that sounds like an argument for sticking with LEED.
http://tinyurl.com/y8g33ro
http://tinyurl.com/yeyb9lp

Among other things, SFI complains that forest certification should not be used as a basis for resolving land use disputes with indigenous people. Given that most land use disputes with native people are about the unfair and exploitative development of their natural resources, forest certification is EXACTLY an appropriate vehicle for bringing this issue to the table. That SFI objects to this aspect of FSC's requirements really shows that SFI's priorities are to support the timber industry, not the environment or native peoples.

There are other "Green Building" programs out there. Green Globes accepts all the forestry certifications and utilizes LCA throughout the system. I am hearing about several LEED projects that are a year and a half beyond completion and still waiting for certification. I believe Green Globes guarantees certification within 2 months of project completion.

The Green Globes software is supposed to be more user friendly than LEED and is interactive (nothing can be worse that LEED in my humble opinion regarding paperwork). That is where the free 30-day trial comes in handy. Also Green Globes welcomes questions and does not charge a fee per question. Not the case regarding LEED - $230 per question and lots of channels to go through to actually find someone to talk to, even paying the fee.

LEED has lots of professionals unhappy with current changes. Some of the changes are actually good also. In any case, competition is always good so that both programs can become better and more user friendly.

I concur, this is incredibly disappointing. Not only is it going to make it harder to convince clients of LEED's worth but this sends a horrible message to the community. All I keep hearing is absolute disgust and the sentiment that GBCI is only a greedy money making machine, concerned most with its bottom line and least with actually building sustainable buildings. While this is harsh I can't help but agree a little bit. I want LEED to succeed in transforming the market, it is not going to do that but raising costs to such a prohibitive level.

There is a forum with some additional discussion of this topic going on at our sister site, LEEDuser, for anyone interested in some more opinonating:

http://bit.ly/54PWbZ

(members)

Not only disappointing, but frustrating. We have such a hard time here in Alaska getting clients interested in sustainable building, let alone registering a LEED project, that the added expense is going to be a real deterrent.

I agree that this needs discussion with the regard to added financial strains on those individuals who WANT to do the right thing, but always have someone asserting financial constaints on the proposed project. let's take baby steps, and produce more positive case studies by volume before increasing fees. there are still those that worry about overall project costs.