LEED: Gremlins, Energy Modeling, and The Future
Today Rob Watson, the father of LEED, replied to my post When LEED Falls Short regarding Dartmouth College's poorly performing LEED certified buildings on his site. Rob had some interesting comments regarding my post such as:
What is striking about this comment and about the (albeit pained) tenor of the blog piece is that LEED is to blame! Forget the architect, forget the engineers, forget the contractors . . . LEED is to blame. I guess it's sort of like, "My bank account can't be overdrawn, I still have checks left!"
The other area where LEED and ASHRAE didn't do very well in the early years was in plug loads, which were essentially excluded from the standards. We are now dealing with a modern campus that is totally wired with 17-inch plasma screens and energy-chewing high-def video games on top of the requisite ear-splitting stereo systems, etc. In all likelihood, none of this was taken into account in Dartmouth's energy modeling.
And let's be frank: Most (not all) energy modeling in the U.S. still sucks. The models themselves are not very good. No one has put much money into developing them or recalibrating the algorithms based on actual detailed building performance measurement.
As its founder I fully understand Mr. Watson's need to defend LEED and to shift the blame for poorly performing buildings to other causes such as poor energy modeling. However, I stand firm in my conviction that LEED is in some ways still to blame. Lets not forget that LEED has requirements for energy modeling! If these energy models are so failed as Mr. Watson claims they are then why isn't LEED and the USGBC doing something to develop a better modeling system? LEED is supposed to serve as a leader in making the buildings of tomorrow more sustainable (a goal which I fully support and the reason I became a LEED AP). I suggest LEED and the USGBC start investing in developing a energy model that accounts for the loads placed on buildings in today's high tech world.
Grats on the well deserved attention to your post Rich!
On the basic question, I am all for improved modelling, but in the end actual performance is reality and that should be the goal and end measurement in my book. Perhaps LEED is ultimately not the energy yardstick as opposed to simply a facilitation tool on the road to the future.
Again, I think that this debate is more about tools than goals. LEED is not a purely energy related rating system and has benefits aside from the energy issues. Until LEED gets more energy oriented, then it should be used in concert with other measures to assure great ROI and energy efficiency.
WRT the modeling issue, it's largely been solved in V2.2/V3. What we're seeing are legacy projects from V2/2.1 based on ASHRAE 90.1-1999 which did not have modeling rules, nor the Appendix G guidelines. Something else that is happening that is either being ignored or folks are not aware of is the dramatic shift to EB/EBOM--more certified floor area in EB this year than NC/CS--which IS based on "actual performance" as measured by Energy Star. It's likely that the existing building standard will become the main LEED standard, reflecting the relative amount of existing floor area vs. the annual new additions.