New Report Gives More to Reason to Be Wary of LEED Standards

Here we go again.  The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has been writing about the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for a long time.  In what seemed to big news, there was a report earlier this year that the Washington, D.C. area has led the nation in LEED certification.  This was according to stats based on a per-capita ranking.  But, a new report shows that being at the top on a LEED-based list may not be as prestigious or beneficial as many would have you believe. Research by the Environmental Policy Alliance found that the city that has the most LEED-certified buildings doesn’t necessarily make it the most efficient. In an analysis of initial energy use data, the free-market organization concluded that the buildings in DC with LEED certification are actually using more energy:

Large, privately-owned buildings that received the green energy certification Leadership in Energy Design (LEED) actually use more energy than buildings that didn’t receive this green stamp of approval.

This is in direct contradiction to the argument that LEED proponents have been giving for years. The entire system is based upon the goal that being LEED certified is all about being a more energy efficient. The report, released by the Environmental Policy Alliance at the end of February, certainly dispels the myth that the business model used by the US Green Building Council (USGBC), the private environmental group responsible for LEED, actually works. The report also appears to confirm a recent analysis by the Washington Examiner about LEED buildings in DC that was published earlier this year.

This isn’t the first time the benefits of LEED certification have come under fire. Last year, the Washington Examiner released results of independent research and analysis they conducted that painted a similar picture of exactly how much LEED certification meant in relation to a building’s energy efficiency in New York:

A high rating in the prestigious LEED certification program may bear little relation to actual greenhouse gas emissions of New York office towers, according to a Washington Examiner analysis.

The Examiner compared actual energy use statistics collected by New York City officials to the certifications distributed by the LEED group.

TPA has been writing (read here and here) about LEED and the partnership between the US Green Building Council (USGBC) and the General Services Administration (GSA) for quite some time and much of our work has focused on the fact that regardless of the promises made, the certification is nothing more than a shiny logo buildings can display on their front doors. With continued analyses showing that these LEED certified buildings aren’t so efficient after all, why would any property owner seek the certification? Anastasia Swearingen of USA Today sums up the answer to this question quite succinctly:

Why aren’t LEED buildings more energy efficient? Because the USGBC doesn’t actually require them to be. To achieve certification under the existing LEED standards, buildings just have to show the USGBC that based on a computer modeling of energy and water usage data, the buildings meet USGBC standards. How buildings fare once they’re actually occupied and used doesn’t factor into whether they can display a shiny “LEED Certified” plaque next to their entrance.

One of the greatest concerns that TPA has sounded the alarm on throughout our own work on LEED is the need for transparency with the certification process. There is no doubt that any public-private partnership where taxpayers have a direct stake at hand must be completely open so that the program can withstand any scrutiny that may come as a result of process and/or results. This is something that has not fallen on deaf ears and even city officials in DC (where $5.2 million in permit fees have been paid) are acknowledging the issue:

In its own report released with the data, even the city’s Department of Environment acknowledged the concerns raised by the “dependence on a third-party organization, over which the government has no oversight, to set the District’s green building standards.” But while it understands the risks, the D.C. government continues to mandate the ratings for public buildings — and get cash from the program.

The continuing reports on the impact of LEED certification only do more to raise doubts in the standards and processes being used to come up with this entire system. Obviously the interests that have a stake in furthering the LEED agenda will continue to attack the studies that show certification doesn’t necessarily lead (or LEED) to efficiency but make no mistake, TPA will continue to bring attention to the findings that expose LEED and their lackluster track record on energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is a laudable goal, but LEED does not seem to accomplish that task.  If the federal government is serious about energy efficiency, there needs to be more competition in energy savings programs.  Without competition, LEED will continue to cost taxpayers millions of dollars with no benefit.