The Environmental Policy Alliance (EPA) has recently released research to show that LEED-certified buildings in the Washington DC area may have a good reputation but there are questions about their energy efficiency. There are concerns about LEED that are mentioned in this article. It is particularly important in Washington because D.C. is one of several major localities to mandate the use of LEED in construction of public buildings and was the first city to require all buildings (public and private) to disclose energy usage.
LEED Certification Fails to Increase Energy Efficiency, Says Environmental Policy Alliance
Release of D.C. Energy Benchmarking Data Shows LEED-Certified Buildings Use More Energy and are More Expensive
Recently, LEED Exposed, a project of the Environmental Policy Alliance (EPA), released research showing that large privately-owned buildings in Washington D.C. certified under the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, actually use more energy than uncertified buildings.
Despite having the highest number of buildings in the country certified under LEED, Washington D.C. buildings are actually less energy efficient than the national average.
LEED Exposed determined energy consumption by comparing the weather-normalized, source energy use intensity, or EUI (a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size), for both buildings certified by the USGBC as “green” and those that have not gone through the USGBC’s expensive permitting process. For LEED-certified buildings, their EUI was 205, compared to 199 for non-certified buildings. Ironically, USGBC’s headquarters (which has achieved the highest level of LEED certification) is even worse at 236.
“This latest data release only confirms what we already knew: LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these ‘green’ buildings,” said Anastasia Swearingen, research analyst for the Environmental Policy Alliance. “Previous analyses of energy use by LEED-certified buildings have consistently shown that LEED ratings have no bearing on actual energy efficiency.”
These findings are significant as D.C. is one of several major localities to mandate the use of LEED in construction of public buildings and was the first city to require all buildings (public and private) to disclose energy usage. An analysis by The Washington Examiner earlier this year of D.C. government buildings found that many of the District’s LEED-certified buildings were the least energy-efficient of all comparable buildings.
The city’s Department of Environment (DOE) recognizes the problems with using LEED standards. In a report accompanying the release of data, the DOE says concerns and questions regarding the use of LEED include, “The dependence on a third-party organization, over which the government has no oversight, to set the District’s green building standards,” and, “The perception that application costs associated with LEED are significant.”
“It’s troubling that to achieve the laudable goal of promoting greater energy efficiency, the District relies on the use of a third-party rating system that doesn’t require actual proof of energy efficiency to earn certification,” continued Swearingen. “Even more alarming is the fact that the city is collecting millions of dollars in permit fees to administer this inefficient program.”
In fiscal year 2013, D.C. collected over $1.6 million in green building fees, and the District has collected over $5.2 million in fees since 2010. Despite the expense, D.C. lags behind the rest of the country in energy efficient office buildings. The median EUI nationwide for office buildings is 148—DC’s is 214, or 44% more than the national median.
Swearingen concluded: “It’s time for D.C. to ditch LEED and move towards a certification system that promises real improvements in energy efficiency.”
For more information regarding the problems of LEED certification mandates, visit LEEDexposed.com.
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
To put the post and “EPA’s” “analysis” in perspective, start with this background from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html):
NEW YORK — A front group for Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm Berman & Company is back with new targets: green buildings, green groups and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Berman & Co., helmed by Rick Berman (who was once called “Dr. Evil” by CBS’ “60 Minutes”), has a long history of running campaigns on behalf of the food and beverage industry under the banner of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Earlier this year, CCF changed its name to the Center for Organizational Research & Education, according to documents filed with the Government of the District of Columbia and the North Carolina Secretary of State’s Office, which were obtained by The Huffington Post. The group also recently launched the cleverly named Environmental Policy Alliance, or EPA for short, a group “devoted to uncovering the funding and hidden agendas behind environmental activist groups.”
An Environmental Policy Alliance spokesperson told HuffPost that the name change is part of a “restructuring” to “broaden the work that we’re doing.” The CCF will continue to exist, but alongside the “EPA” under the umbrella of the Center for Organizational Research & Education.
The new Environmental Policy Alliance appears to be one of Berman’s first major forays into energy and environmental policy. The new “EPA” targets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which it deems “America’s most powerful environmental activist.”
Berman’s “EPA Facts” site suggests that the connection between rising greenhouse gas emissions and warming temperatures is “still unclear,” despite the fact that scientists have a solid understanding of the correlation. The group also argues that there are flaws in the work of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, citing reports from two well-known climate change-denying groups, the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.
CCF’s Environmental Policy Alliance also launched a campaign called “LEED Exposed” last week, which critiques the usefulness of the U.S. Green Building Council’s rating system for sustainability and efficiency of buildings. The group’s “research” purports to show that “LEED-certified buildings use more energy and are more expensive” than uncertified buildings.
“This latest data release only confirms what we already knew: LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these ‘green’ buildings,” Berman staffer Anastasia Swearingen said in a press release announcing the launch of the campaign on Feb. 28.
Swearingen also wrote an anti-LEED op-ed for Forbes in December 2013, arguing, “we’re clearly not spending that money wisely.”
A closer look at LEED Exposed’s methodology reveals a significant omission. The report concludes that, as a whole, LEED-certified buildings in Washington, D.C., use more energy than buildings without the certification. But the analysis only looks at the energy use of buildings relative to size, or what is known as energy use intensity.
EUI is only one of several recognized benchmarks used by building professionals to assess a building’s efficiency, and looking at it in isolation ignores the importance of building density. Thus a large, abandoned building would score well for EUI, because its energy use is quite low relative to size.
“Their goal is just to confuse you,” Scot Horst, the senior vice president of LEED at the U.S. Green Building Council, told HuffPost. Most Americans are unfamiliar with terms like energy use intensity, he explained, and may not fully grasp the complexities of assessing efficiency. EUI is “only a very partial snapshot of what’s happening,” according to Horst, and ignoring other measurements “leads to very unfair comparisons.”
Groups like the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represent the wood, plastics and vinyl industries, have bashed LEED in the past.
Swearingen told HuffPost that the alliance doesn’t solely represent business interests, arguing that all Americans have a vested interest in affordable energy.
“Berman makes his money as a corporate hired gun, setting up front groups to denigrate public interest organizations that threaten his clients’ bottom lines,” Melanie Sloan, executive director for the nonprofit watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told HuffPost. “I’m not surprised he’s attacking groups and agencies focused on the environment, given the deep pockets of those interested in paying to stop climate change legislation and regulation.”
“These methods of attack rely on the way people read media,” Horst added. “They rely on creating confusion.”
Manufacturing doubt around scientific issues and sowing confusion through the media is a well-documented industry strategy — one that Berman has often employed.
Berman & Co. has previously attacked organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and campaigned against minimum-wage increases and unionization.
The Environmental Policy Alliance also ran a full-page ad in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, claiming that the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Food & Water Watch “are using scare tactics and junk science to push policies that increase the cost of energy.”
“This feeble attempt at a smear campaign is a good reminder to always consider the source,” an NRDC spokesperson told HuffPost. “As opposed to this newly re-named front group, we’ve been around for decades. We cite our research. We sign our names on our materials. And we don’t lurk in the shadows because there’s no reason to hide our good work to protect our air, our water and our communities.”
Hi Anke. This is indeed very interesting. They certainly are creating confusion. Thanks for passing this on.