Is there any value to getting a building certified by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) or is it just a money-making scam for a group of companies and organisations? There are some serious doubts coming into play as a class-action lawsuit has been filed by mechanical systems designer Henry Gifford, of Gifford Fuel Saving. He thinks that the rating system for buildings is flawed and the Leed credential is losing its credibility.
According to
an article in BuildingGreen.com, the suit alleges that USGBC’s claim that it verifies efficient design and construction is “false and intended to mislead the consumer and monopolise the market for energy-efficient building design.”
Is Leed certification just a way to keep out competition on jobs? Mr Gifford seems to think so and states that within his lawsuit.
That is a big accusation but if the class-action lawsuit is successful, it really smashes the credibility of not only the USGBC, but also all those industry pundits saying that Leed certification is some big achievement to have for buildings.
Does this lawsuit against the USGBC have merit? Without having a detailed copy in front of me, I cannot speak to the specifics but it does make you want to stop and ask, “Is this Leed certification bogus?” The lawsuit is a real wake-up call to those who followed all the climate hype blindly.
At an energy conference earlier in the year where I spoke on Intelligent Infrastructure and regional economic development, there were some power and energy experts pointing out that some lighting systems which were focused and hyped on energy savings actually had very long paybacks.
The real numbers showed that the energy savings would need 25 to 40 years to be realised. That type of payback on investment is not going to be sold to the owner or the property management company.
This type of field observation adds some credibility to Mr Gifford’s assertion that the Leeds program may not really be as financially viable for the building owner as what some have preached in the past.
Energy savings have to be measured and documented properly and cannot be left being measured by a yardstick like this:
Where is the amount of time it takes to achieve that savings and at what cost upfront for the energy-saving system?
What if a building is supposedly Leeds-certified, but is not saving the owner money on operations? That is a huge question that the proponents of Lleeds seem to be ducking. The only way to get around that accusation is to hook up measurement capabilities and show actual operational savings.
Measuring performance almost as a post-implementation review is one way to realize if the claims and Leeds “certification process” add up to real savings.
In the mid-1980s, I created a building intelligence test to measure what was in a building as to traditional and intelligent amenities. In that test, there were categories that measured what type of technology a building had within it. (Lighting systems, various energy management systems, building automation systems, communication systems and other information technology-related systems.)
Having the technology in a building does not guarantee operational savings. Testing which measures performance and cost-savings over a period of time are also necessary. It will be interesting to see where this lawsuit winds up.
CARLINI-ISM : Actual building performance and costs of operations should be the true indicators of whether or not a system is advantageous to install.
Email the writer:
j.carlini@alrroya.com
Your comments