LEED: The Emperor Has No Clothes

The highly touted LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification program for energy performance of new homes, schools, and commercial buildings has until now outrun its mostly hidden flaws.  LEED has been a resounding green business success story, enticing thousands of building owners clamoring for certification, spawning a thriving cottage industry of designers and accredited certifiers, and attaining most favored status among climate-conscious municipalities and politicians nationwide. Saving energy is LEED's raison d’être, with the resulting projected decreases in greenhouse gas emissions the reason for the program's sex appeal among the serious-minded. LEED's commercial successes may continue but its flaws have finally begun catching up to the hype.

As reported by Mireya Navarro in the August 30 New York Times, in addition to other sources, a recent review by the program's administrators, the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), found that a stunning 25 percent of LEED commercial buildings sampled did not live up to expectations for energy efficiency. Further, most certified buildings had not even been monitored for actual performance. A smart-looking green design suffused with good intentions and energy- or water-saving features was generally all that was needed (along with an ability to count points) for your office building to score one of those snazzy LEED certification plaques.

For those of us who have worked in the environmental certification business, LEED's overblown claims of energy savings have been an open secret.
The only questions were whether and when USGBC would do anything about it. Until their recent bad press they were too preoccupied with certifying their more than 1,900 new commercial projects to stop and reflect on their program's lack of integrity.  Now, the USGBC will finally at least track every certified building's energy performance, as well as impose "minimum project requirements" -- no such requirements before -- but the information will be kept confidential.

  The underlying problem brought to light is that LEED certification is awarded before buildings would have to earn it through actual performance -- you know, when actual tenants are turning on the lights, fiddling with the air conditioning, and flushing toilets.  The unsurprising consequence is that performance falls short of advance pledges, with many LEED buildings registering barely any improvement over traditional non-certified buildings.

The New Buildings Institute (NBI), which did the recent research that has set off such a reaction, did a similar-sounding study in 2008, in that case examining 121 LEED new construction (NC) commercial buildings. From the 2008 report's Executive Summary, "One quarter [of LEED buildings surveyed]...had [Energy Star] ratings below 50, meaning they used more energy than average for comparable existing building stock."

For here is another ugly truth about LEED:  One of the One of the primary drivers of most commercial buildings' gluttonous energy consumption is their HVAC system (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).  So LEED encourages more efficient heating and cooling systems, right?  Not necessarily.  Certification can be earned by using measures such as bicycle racks, nontoxic paint and desert landscaping. Building owners can ignore their energy gobbling HVAC systems and still reap a public relations bonanza by hosting a "Our Building is LEED-certified" party.

There are other fundamental problems with LEED's approach, such as the methodology of its points system that determines certification.  Points for various environmental and efficiency measures are added up into one cumulative score. Score enough points and you achieve a certain level of certification. Since certification is promoted as having meaning, the score that earns it also must then have meaning. In other words, the score achieved is supposed to connote environmental accomplishment. But does it? Does the score mean anything?

Think of the ingredients labels on any of the thousands of products you find at your local grocery store.  Ketchup, sliced bread, soup, you name it. These labels provide a breakdown of elements found in the product such as calories, grams of sugar and fat, and so forth, as well as the weight or percentage of that ingredient. This generally is helpful to consumers -- info on the label is transparent, detailed, and logical. What if, instead, these ingredients labels said "112"? Or "76?" Or "850?"

Now think again of whatever LEED building you have in mind. What does its score tell you about that building's "ingredients" and, thus, its energy performance? Nada.

LEED, to be sure, has fostered legitimate energy efficiency gains for buildings, and its supporters include those currently residing in the White House. But its exaggerated reputation make the certification something of a sham. Any program that bestows awards without demanding accountability from its awardees cannot be considered a leadership standard. LEED is another lightly salted "fat free" snack food ingested by overweight Americans who prefer the couch to the gym and the car to a 3-block walk.