Big Green: Fastcompany article on LEED

Fri Sep 28 16:29:04 EDT 2007

These are great comments. Unfortunately we're talking to the choir. 
FastCompany invites comments on the article to be posted on their 
website in parallel with the article. I encourage people to take this 
excellent dialogue there where the posting is expedient, damage 
control is needed, and where the people who need to hear it, can!

Huston Eubank

At 3:12 PM -0400 9/28/07, John W. Roberts wrote:
>Ludmilla,
>
>Evidently the author of this article feels that the energy standards 
>for new buildings should be better than what LEED currently 
>requires.  However the author has used a lot of smear tactics and 
>exaggerations to support a certain point of view.  If one wants to 
>advocate that LEED or other standards require more energy savings, 
>then one should advocate that position without a broad attack on the 
>motives of people involved with LEED. (Disclosure: I am a LEED 
>Accredited Professional, but I haven't done any Green Buildings, so 
>I don't have a whole lot invested in this.)
>
>The article states that there is one point for a bike rack and one 
>point for having 50% renewable energy.  This is not true.  In LEED 
>2.2 there is one point for a bike rack with showers and changing 
>rooms; there are three points for providing 12.5% of energy for 
>renewables.
>
>At another point in the article there is a complaint that on a $4.8 
>million dollar sports center project, LEED certification was going 
>to cost $27,500.  That certification cost amounts to 0.6% of the 
>construction cost.  I think 0.6% is a very reasonable cost to pay 
>for getting a certified building.  The strength of the LEED system 
>is that the owner is getting a very carefully reviewed application 
>to certify that the building does indeed meet all the green building 
>requirements, which cover a whole host of issues, not just the 
>energy consumption.  Without certification, how can the public judge 
>whether a building that claims to be green is really built to a good 
>standard?
>
>The article then goes on to unfavorably compare LEED to the AIA 2030 
>Challenge.  The article mentions LEED saves "only" 20-30% energy 
>while the 2030 Challenge calls for 50% reduction.  First, LEED gives 
>more points for more energy saved.  The basis of LEED is energy 
>savings exceeding the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 energy 
>standards.  The 2030 Challenge calls for new buildings to use 50% 
>less energy than *existing* buildings in the DOE database.  So this 
>comparison of LEED and the 2030 Challenge is not apples to apples. 
>I am sure that most LEED professionals support the goals of the 2030 
>Challenge.
>
>As an ASHRAE member, I would also like to point out the ASHRAE 90.1 
>energy standard is continuously evolving and requiring greater 
>energy savings.  The 90.1 standard represents best practice in many 
>areas.  The requirements in the standard for installed lighting 
>power, installed fan horsepower, the equipment efficiencies, and 
>many other requirements are quite stringent as it is.  In my 
>opinion, saving 20 to 30% more than the ASHRAE standard is very 
>respectable and would represent very substantial savings of 
>buildings built just a few years ago.  I bristle at phrases I often 
>here at seminars to the extent that if one only complies with the 
>standard, that one is being professionally deficient.  In fact, 
>complying with that standard requires careful design of the building 
>and energy systems to meet the energy standards, particularly in 
>hospitals and laboratories.
>
>So in conclusion, I would say no, the article below is not well 
>written, but it is provocative.
>
>Best regards,
>
>John W. Roberts, PE, MSPH, LEED AP
>IES Engineers
>605 Eastowne Dr.
>Chapel Hill, NC 27514
>Tel (919) 433-0075 ext 236
>Fax (919) 433-0079
>email: jroberts at ies-engineers.com
>

At 3:57 PM -0400 9/28/07, Craig Kneeland wrote:
>Fastcompany works out of World Trade Center (WTC 7), which is a LEED 
>Gold Core and Shell building, not a LEED Gold NC building.  That 
>means the base building, which can be defined as the area within the 
>building not intended for occupancy, is green.  If the tenants want 
>to occupy green space, it is up to them to make it so.  As the LEED 
>scorecard shows, WTC 7 achieved a single Energy and Atmosphere 
>Credit 1 point, so it's going to be more challenging for the tenants 
>of the building to have low energy bills.  And, like Chris Benedict 
>pointed out at One Bryant Park, the building has floor to ceiling 
>glazing.
>
>
>
>Setting a performance bar is always a balancing act.  Set it too 
>high, and the market will completely ignore the product; set it too 
>low, and naysayers will have a field day.  This holds true in any 
>market.  Can the USGBC set the LEED bar higher?  Absolutely.  Are 
>they working on it?  Yes, and they have been for years.  Is it fast 
>enough?  No, the progress is frustratingly slow.  Has the market 
>adopted LEED?  Definitely.  Has the US benefitted from LEED?  No 
>question.
>
>
>
>The energy performance standards of AIA 2030 are consistent with the 
>goals of ASHRAE and, therefore, LEED.  Interestingly, these 
>goals were established before AIA 2030 came on the scene.  AIA 2030 
>compares energy usage in new buildings to that of existing 
>buildings; ASHRAE compares energy performance in new buildings to an 
>increasingly strict standard.  AIA 2030 has done more to increase 
>awareness of energy efficiency than anything I've seen in more than 
>25 years in the industry.
>
>
>
>It is unclear in the article whether the 20% growth in revenue 
>coming from certification is 20% of 100% or 20% of 30%.  I admit to 
>not staying on top of this, but the last I knew, certification fees 
>were pretty much loss leaders, not something that accounted for 67% 
>of the USGBC's increased revenues.
>
>
>
>The USGBC is a leader in the green building movement, but it is 
>certainly not the entire movement, so there is no need for someone 
>to fear eternal damnation for criticizing the organization and its 
>products.
>
>
>
>If the USGBC were to mandate the achievement of all 10 Optimize 
>Energy Efficiency points, there might be 10 LEED rated buildings in 
>the country.  However, no one would know about them because green 
>buildings wouldn't be in newspapers, magazines, the internet, TV 
>etc.  Fastcompany probably wouldn't have published this article.
>
>
>
>Like I said earlier, setting the bar is a balancing act.  Is some 
>progress better than no progress?  I think so.  Is the progress 
>enough?  No.  Mr. Schendler admits mandating a 42% improvement over 
>ASHRAE 90.1-2004 doesn't solve the problem.  That's because new 
>buildings account for about 10% of all buildings in the country. 
>The big target for carbon reduction is the reduction of energy usage 
>in existing buildings.  The USGBC is the primary player in the green 
>building industry, but energy efficiency has numerous players.
>
>
>
>Point-mongering is human nature.  The USGBC can hardly be held 
>responsible for that.  I've never met Chris Benedict, but I've heard 
>great things about her for many years.  She is a role model for the 
>industry, but her market share is small.  Is it because her ideas 
>are inferior? Hardly.  Well why?  Human nature.
>
>
>
>There is no law that restricts people from exceeding LEED standards. 
>In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that LEED is akin to 
>codes, setting minimum performance criteria, not maximum.
>
>
>
>I don't think LEED is perfect, but I do think it's good.  It has 
>accomplished many positive things and done an excellent job of 
>laying the foundation for future growth and improvement.
>
>
>
>Craig Kneeland
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>This green building dialogue is provided as a public service
>by Drew George, along with Environmental Building News
>http://www.buildinggreen.com. For instructions see 
>http://www.biggreen.org/discussion.html
>_______________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.biggreen.org/pipermail/biggreen/attachments/20070928/99e774f2/attachment.html