Earlier this summer I wrote about the sometimes topsy-turvy world of green building and how sometimes the best “green” intentions can lead to unexpected—and decidedly inefficient—results. In my July blog, “When Green Buildings Go Bad”, I asked, “should there be real and quantifiable standards enacted (much like USGB’s LEED certification process) that account for not just the design and materials, but also pay attention to the individual needs of a particular building.” After reading a recent article in the New York Times, (“Some Buildings Not Living Up to Green Label”, I’ve come to the realization that I did not go far enough—because while it’s certainly laudable to begin a new project or start a building retrofit with energy efficiency goals in mind, the final outcome is what’s really important.
For example, what is achieved when a building lands a LEED certification (based on points amassed for design and landscaping), but is unable to qualify for the EPA’s Energy Star label a year later because 12 months of energy bills indicate that the building is far from energy efficient?
USGB is already on the case, working to close the gap between design and implementation. In August, USGB announced that the LEED program would now include data about energy use on all the building that earn a LEED certification. As reported in the New York Times, under this new LEED program, all newly constructed buildings will be required to provide energy and water bills for the first five years of operation. Additionally, the LEED certification could be rescinded if the data is not provided, finally putting some teeth into its labeling system.
So what do you think? Is this data requirement enough? Should building performance be tracked, and can the information gathered inform future LEED type projects? And, should any “green” label be awarded based on aspirations rather than quantifiable results?