Energy, Post-Occupancy & Codes: The Ghosts of LEED Present

Posted on September 18, 2009 by Timothy R. Hughes

The recent New York Times piece criticizing LEED (discussed previously) has reignited discussion of the potential for decertification after initial issuance of LEED certification. Some previously pointed to the USGBC addition of extended energy reporting for five years after occupancy as a "Minimum Performance Requirement" and the threat of decertification as an enforcement mechanism.  More recently, commentators have predicted recertification programs.  Rich Cartlidge even called for a wedding between LEED for New Construction and LEED for Existing Buildings.

The USGBC changes must be viewed against the backdrop of the development of international, state and local building codes and even Congressional legislation.  Codified efficiency standards would clearly and immediately raise the minimum energy bar across the board and reduce or eliminate some of the arguments raised by the Times article.  Reducing compliance to clear codes may also reduce in part the increasingly complex interface between local authorities interpreting prescriptive codes and the interpretive voluntary third party organization subject to little if any legal challenge or appeal (commented on previously by Chris Hill).   LEED as a voluntary tool has succeeded in driving the dialogue and advancing knowledge of green building.  LEED as a remotely delegated code interpretative structure with limited avenues of legal challenge is far more complicated.

With regards to code based approaches to energy efficiency, at least one local energy code has been passed and partially tested ... and stopped dead in its tracks (at least temporarily). The City of Albuquerque passed its own building code with energy efficiency standards. In granting a preliminary injunction blocking application of the code, a federal district court judge made the preliminary finding that it was more likely than not the challenger would prevail based on an argument that Congress had spoken on energy efficiency and that the federal statutes preempted state or local action.

The City of Albuquerque case reached the preliminary finding of federal preemption despite the fact that when Congress passed its energy efficiency measures, it included an express limited caveat that excluded building codes from preemption. The case is still pending, so the ultimate result is up in the air. The case does, however, offer a roadmap to those seeking to challenge statewide and local building code efforts to impose energy efficiency standards.

Given these complexities, it may be simpler for proponents of increased efficiency to do so at the federal level. The Waxman-Markley bill (described as the cap and trade bill by some, by others as The Illiad) includes significant increases in required energy efficiency requirements. While these standards have received extensive attention and commentary from green building bloggers, the press and public discussion of these aspects of the bill have been almost strangely silent.

The interplay of these issues raise a number of questions, particularly if proponents are successful at incorporating energy efficiency standards into federal or state statutes:

  • If LEED in fact incorporates recertification and/or on-going performance requirements, will it reach the tipping point where owners and end-users push back on fees and process?
  • What is LEED's role in the future if green requirements are increasingly codified? Does LEED always impose higher requirements? Does it stick to a holistic approach and avoid "energy myopia" as coined by Shari Shapiro?
  • If/when statutory framework for sustainable development emerges in earnest, will the position of pre-eminence of LEED erode? Is the USGBC's ultimate mission of "working to make green building available to everyone within a generation" furthered more by advancing legal codification or increasing the reach and depth of its current market penetration?

These are the Ghosts of LEED Present.  Next time we will discuss in greater detail the thicket of legal risk and defense issues posed by extended reporting requirements, decertification and recertification, including statutes of limitations and shared/murky issues of risk and responsibility.
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

New York Times, LEED and GSA: The Ghost of LEED Past?

Posted on September 13, 2009 by Timothy R. Hughes

The legal blogosphere has been active the last two weeks with discussion of the recent article in the New York Times critical of LEED. The article in essence uses the example project of the Federal Building in Youngstown, Ohio as a sample for LEED projects that fail to be "green". The Times in particular attacks the actual energy performance of a specific project as an example of why the LEED certified project is not in fact green. Reaction has been varied, from Shari Shapiro pointing out these discussions have been in the mix for some time  to an impassioned, relatively emotional, reaction from Rob Watson, a board member of USGBC and significant national player in the green movement.  Chris Cheatham has pointed out for discussion the interplay between green building success on the one hand and risk associated with projects receiving funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Before we move on to the bigger picture, the article deserves the specific focus on the example project, called by the Times the "Federal Building", but more properly known as the Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and US Courthouse (Youngstown, OH).  

After first glance, the Times article raises more questions than it purports to answer. The article states, "[T]he building is hardly a model of energy efficiency. According to an environmental assessment last year, it did not score high enough to qualify for the Energy Star Label[.]"  A review of the GSA study on its website reveals a few interesting facts that the Times left out of the article:

  • The GSA study was of 14 first wave green GSA buildings ; 8 were LEED certified, 2 were LEED registered, one used Green Building Challenge, and three were designed with an emphasis on energy efficiency
  • The Federal Building project did not seek any credits for energy efficiency under EA Credit 1. Similarly, the project did not seek points for additional commissioning, measurement and verification, or green power 
  • While the Federal Building project did not receive the 75 score required to qualify for Energy Star, it did in fact reach a 58 despite the fact the building did not even try for the energy efficiency credits. Every other GSA project contained in the study qualified for Energy Star

So how did a project that is alleged by the Times to have a "major gas guzzler" of a cooling system reach LEED certification in 2002? A review of the GSA's webpage describing the project, and further discussion at BuildingGreen.com, reveals that the site is a downtown redevelopment of a previously paved site. The project included restoration and planting with native and adapted vegetation and reduction of impervious area by a whopping 58%. The project reduced ozone depletion by use of HFC refrigerants and the fire suppression system includes no halons. Over 72% of project waste was recycled and the project used structural steel with 90% post-consumer recycled content. Over 62% of the project's building materials were manufactured locally.

The New York Times' focus on the Federal Building project does bring a couple of key themes into focus.  First, "green" is not the same to everyone.  Indeed, Build2Sustain has had a fascinating discussion on-going on its blog and also on its various members blogs and twitter accounts comparing use of "green" and use of "sustainable" terminology. The use of loose labels where everyone does not agree on a shared meaning can create misunderstandings. Green does not necessarily mean energy efficient as there are plenty of areas allowing points under LEED that can in fact inhibit energy efficiency.

Second, the project used as the centerpiece of the article was completed in September 2002. LEED has come a long way since then and trying to extrapolate structures that were designed roughly ten years ago and apply that to current conditions may be suspect.

Finally, the USGBC has in fact already taken steps to address these issues. The new LEED 2009 standards incorporate a shift in greater emphasis towards energy efficiency in particular. Further, USGBC is taking steps to require on-going reporting and has indeed discussed using decertification as a means to require on-going compliance. (Please visit Matt Devries' blog for an excellent recap of the commentary that erupted when the decertification discussion first broke several months ago). 

In summation, it appears like the NYT dug and found an example of an old project to raise objections that the USGBC has already been addressing with LEED ... in short, they are perhaps trying to resurrect the Ghost of LEED Past.  In a few days, we will visit with the Ghosts of LEED Present and Future and try to extrapolate where LEED may be heading and what that means in terms of future risk management, contract exposure, and potential economic pitfalls associated with these trends.

Image (Courthouse): by OZinOH

Tags: , , , , , , , ,