Carrot, not stick

By Michael Vanreusel

A column in the New York Times (“Don’t LEED us astray” May 19^th 2010), by Alec Applebaum, suggested that the USGBC, parent of the LEED rating system, was placing green badges on buildings that may in fact “leak excessive carbon once in operation”. The columnist argues that for the rating system to be effective the energy use of certified buildings needs to be monitored after completion.

The LEED system is not perfect, but the columnist fails to provide background on LEED criteria, which in fact does require building commissioning. Also, it’s important to weight the likelihood of the suggested scenario, against the realities of the vetting process and the considerable vested interest in achieving energy efficiency. The vetting process is protected by the commitment of professionals to decrease the impact of their buildings on the environment, the separation of interests by a bureaucracy in which parties are invisible to each other and, not least, the owners stake in an investment that will be expected to be justified by energy savings.

The LEED system establishes guidelines and performance criteria for the plethora of issues that are inherent to the construction, use and maintenance of buildings. Beyond the possible award of a badge, the system provides practitioners with a valuable tool. The system recognizes a broad array of practices that will improve the sustainability of buildings without letting builders circumvent stringent basic requirements.

In case of building energy consumption, LEED requires at the very least that the building meets the requirements ASHREA 90.1. The builders will have to consider various building components including the building envelope, HVAC, Water Heating, power distribution and lighting in order to meet stipulated criteria. While the team working on the project may be emphasizing water conservation or indoor air equality, none of the criteria exist in isolation so team members will continuously be assessing each decision’s broader impact. In this regard at least, LEED is remarkable.

Perhaps because the system has been so widely adopted it’s important to place it within the context in which we build. The U.S. Green Building Council is not a government agency; it was started and adopted by practitioners who were alarmed by the impact of buildings on our environment. State governments have previously made compliance with otherwise elective standards mandatory but few of the practices encouraged by LEED have been adopted as requirements. While we clearly need new energy codes and rules to restrict practices that are deleterious to the environment, letting builders aspire to improve the sustainability of their buildings clearly spurs creativity and self-accountability. LEED is doing just that, using a carrot not a stick.

Verification of the performance of the building beyond the scope already included in LEED’s requirements would be a useful gage of an important parameter of the building’s sustainability. Still, it would be a mistake to suppose that buildings that have otherwise gone through an exhaustive vetting process under the helm of professionals committed to sustainability will not perform as designed. The building’s owners provide final oversight and they expect that their LEED badge, will justify their investment into building assemblies, systems and commissioning by lower operating costs and lower energy use.