USGBC Addresses Performance Gap
I'm impressed. In one fell swoop, the USGBC has stepped up to the plate to address the primary criticisms of the LEED rating system.
Kudos to Scot Horst and the USGBC for acknowledging an issue that has bothered many users of the LEED rating system:
“Today there is all too often a disconnect, or performance gap, between the energy modeling done during the design phase and what actually happens during daily operation after the building is constructed,” said Scot Horst, Senior Vice President of LEED, U.S. Green Building Council. “We’re convinced that ongoing monitoring and reporting of data is the single best way to drive higher building performance because it will bring to light external issues such as occupant behavior or unanticipated building usage patterns, all key factors that influence performance.”
In order to address the performance gap, projects seeking LEED certification must agree to comply with one of the following ongoing requirements:
1. The building is recertified on a two-year cycle using LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance.
2. The building provides energy and water usage data on an ongoing basis annually.
3. The building owner signs a release that authorizes USGBC to access the building’s energy and water usage data directly from the building’s utility provider.
There are serious liability and risk issues implicated by this decision, but I am going to ignore those for now.
Instead, I would like to recognize the USGBC for transparently addressing the primary critique of the LEED rating system.
What will happen to projects that don't comply with an ongoing requirement?
Chris,
Great condensed summary. I think we were on the same brain wave this past weekend!
I seriously hope that a post on the liability issues is forthcoming. Could be a good guest post!
This decision is a scary one in many ways, because a contractor or other professional may not be off of the liability hook at the completion of construction.
An ugly potential limitations accrual issue extending indefinitely potentially indefinitely? That is another contract issue for sure.
Here I wanted to relax a bit and instead I need to memorize LEED 3.0 now ...
Rich, Chris and Tim - the Three Green Amigos! Thanks for all the comments.
Rich - I saw your tweet about your post. I will check it out later this week. Underwater with a case right now.
Chris - I will definitely get to the liability issues. Although I am certain to miss some since the implications are so broad. But first, I will have to answer the question "what happens if a project doesn't comply with the chosen option?"
Tim - Exactly what I was thinking.
If projects don't comply with the LEED 2009 MPRs, GBCI can revoke LEED certification, which raises some interesting questions in jurisdictions with LEED-driven mandates. Another risk management question is exactly how the data sharing requirements carry forward if the building changes ownership. Would the failure to translate this obligation into purchase agreements or leases provide USGBC/GBCI grounds to revoke certification?
I knew I liked green building, lots of legal work! Great point Stephen. My big worry is the time horizons that may be put in these contracts to pass liability down the chain.
Stephen - you nailed it. DE-CERTIFICATION! And the answer to your question is yes. More details in my post tomorrow.
Chris - statute of limitations and the length of insurance and surety coverage are going to be extremely important related to the de-certification issue.