I think your argument of tying public policy to LEEDS- NC and EBOM is really an argument over just how important to we take these measures to be, and the environment in general. If for example, in our state, Colorado, all new schools need to meet LEEDS certification, then we also need to ask the question about existing schools. Because the issue is, all schools should meet LEEDS criteria, right? To me, it's a question of commitments and serious commitments on the public policy level, not just marketing or 'check the box' kinds of mentality.
Blog Post
New York Times Op-Ed Doesn't "LEED Us Astray"—Too Much
Today's op-ed piece in the New York Times presents a remarkably balanced viewpoint on LEED and green building issues. Unfortunately it also has a major blindspot.
First, the good points about the article, "Don't LEED Us Astray" (I love it that even the esteemed Times can't help but get in on not-very-subtle LEED punning). The author, Alec Appelbaum, is perceptive enough to see that LEED may not be to blame for the imperfections of LEED-certified buildings and their performance:
The LEED program, which awards points for incorporating eco-friendly material and practices into buildings’ design and construction, has led to a sea change in the industry, introducing environmental awareness into everything from regulatory processes to rents.
But while the standard is well-intentioned, it is also greatly misunderstood. Put simply, a building’s LEED rating is more like a snapshot taken at its opening, not a promise of performance. Unless local, state and federal agencies do their part to ensure long-term compliance with the program’s ideals, it could end up putting a shiny green stamp on a generation of unsustainable buildings.
To be fair, the council never meant for its system to be a seal of green approval. Rather it was to be a set of guidelines for architects, engineers and others who want to make buildings less wasteful.
LEED has been a great tool for bringing sustainability into the conversation. Blaming it for not delivering better energy performance in operational buildings, as some have done, is to miss the point of the LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) rating system. Designers don't operate buildings, and they need a tool that gives them feedback on the environmental merit of their design. LEED-NC does that. The New York Times piece recognizes that, to some extent:
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
BuildingGreen relies on our premium members, not on advertisers. Help make our work possible.
See membership options »Some certified buildings end up using much more energy than the evaluators predicted, because the buildings are more popular than expected or busy at different times than developers forecast, or because tenants ignore or misuse green features. Bike racks merely encourage cycling to work, and operable windows merely offer the opportunity to use less air-conditioning.
The Green Building Council reformed the system last year to reflect actual energy use by having owners report annual performance data. But that’s not enough detail to measure energy consumption accurately, and there’s no clear way to repeal certification if tenants or owners miss their energy-saving targets. As a result, a five-year-old building can turn into an energy hog and still carry its LEED designation.
The piece goes on to call for municipalities that require LEED to follow through on that with checkups, and here is where I beg to differ. Nice idea, but what municipality struggling with budget cuts today has the staff time or expertise to check up on buildings that have earned tax credits or rebates? And what would they do with that information once they had it?
A better solution would be for any building that receives taxpayer support as a result of its LEED-NC certification, to follow through on that with enrollment and at least a Silver certification in the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EBOM) rating system. LEED-EBOM builds naturally on LEED-NC, giving points for things like energy and water metering, and creates a framework for sustainable operations, from energy use to water use to purchasing and solid waste management. LEED-EBOM also works with a process of continual re-certification and performance improvement. Buildings that don't keep up their green practices can lose certification—a clear trigger, if one is needed, for municipalities who might be looking to assign penalties.
LEED-EBOM is quickly moving from the dark horse of the LEED rating systems to one of the most popular, what with the new focus on green operations. I hope the New York Times recognizes it in its next op-ed coverage of LEED.
Finally, congratulations to the team behind One Bryant Park for official recognition of their LEED Platinum office tower, the first in the nation—and the occasion for the article. It's a landmark building, one that has come up in our coverage of how it makes ice at night to cool itself, and in a great EBN article on financing green buildings.
For more on the details of the LEED-EBOM system, I would encourage readers to check out LEEDuser, BuildingGreen's LEED project help tool. Here's a list of the LEED-EBOM credits, with links to summaries of key requirements and documentation samples.
Published May 20, 2010 Permalink Citation
(2010, May 20). New York Times Op-Ed Doesn't "LEED Us Astray"—Too Much. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/new-york-times-op-ed-doesnt-leed-us-astray—too-much
Comments
Alec, I saw your recent Fast
Alec, I saw your recent Fast Company article. I'm really surprised, after the more thoughtful NYT piece, that the FC piece makes so little sense. Can you explain where you're coming from with it? I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just surprised....
Thanks- but I think we agree.
Thanks- but I think we agree. I called for "supplementing" LEED with the power of the public purse. That contains a conviction that LEED is an honest and useful tool. And if governments want to adopt LEED-EBOM (and really understand it), that flows into my argument. Ensuring public goals is a public obligation: open-source networks built some fantastic software, but the government makes sure (or should make sure) that everyone really has broadband access, and the programmers do well by that state of affairs.
Alec, in your op-ed you say,
Alec, in your op-ed you say, "A number of local, state and federal agencies require LEED certification for their new buildings — so why not have them institute follow-up requirements as well?"
I would put the question back to you—if you're supportive of the role that LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) already occupies as a requirement for many tax credits and other incentives, why not use LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (LEED-EBOM) to support that mechanism, by having municipalities require a specific LEED-EBOM rating, for example? The legal issue you raise is real, but if it works for LEED-NC why not make it work for LEED-EBOM? Fears have been raised about "LEEDigation" concerns but so far those appear overblown and something we can protect against.
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2009/12/1/Will-I-Get-Sued-...
I would say my resistance is twofold: a) LEED is doing a good job, let's build on it. b) LEED represents enormous expertise that most cities couldn't build from scratch. It also incorporates lot of recognized and accepted tools—the key energy credits in LEED-EBOM, for example, is mostly covered by the Energy Star Portfolio Manager.
Hi: Thanks for this post. But
Hi: Thanks for this post. But why do you (and others who have written me) resist the idea of government authority providing enforcement power for carbon reduction goals? Even if a building does commit to EBOM ratings, how can a voluntary nonprofit like USGBC or its members legally enforce those promises? And if mistakes happen, who decides who sues whom? Some people may have taken my piece to be a dismissal of LEED: it's an argument that LEED's goals are so important that they should inform public policy.
Love this thinking. It would
Love this thinking. It would be really interesting to see how this building holds up under LEED-EB or any other real energy reporting system, given the relatively inefficient envelope (double-glazed, low-e with some fritting).
What's lost in today's hoopla about this project's LEED platinum rating is that it got that rating under the relatively lax pilot version of LEED for Core and Shell. I don't it would score nearly as well under the current version.
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.