Rob Watson recently published “Green Building Market & Impact Report,” his second annual report on the impact LEED is having in addressing environmental problems. The report highlights the continuing remarkable expansion of LEED: 2009 registrations for new design and construction projects in the U.S. may actually exceed total new construction starts! (This is possible because projects don’t typically register when they start construction, and a flurry of projects was registered just before the requirement to use LEED 2009 kicked in, to keep their options open.)

Watson takes note of the shift from whole building construction to Commercial Interior tenant fit-outs (CI) and Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (EBOM) registration and certification. And he compares 2009 certifications to registration numbers from 2006 and 2007 to see what fraction of projects is making it through the system. (In this analysis he assumes a three-year registration-to-certification timeframe for all except LEED-CI projects, for which he assumes two years. I would have given EBOM projects a shorter turn-around as well – in our market analysis for LEED user we assumed 18 months.)

Analyzing certification and registration trends is not Watson’s main point, however. His focus is on the environmental benefits that follow. And that focus is what really caught my attention. I’m thankful he’s taken that on, because it’s so easy to forget what LEED was created for in the first place.

So, how is LEED doing at achieving its original goal? Watson explores this question category by category, looking at numbers of projects in each of the various rating systems that have achieved certain credits.

Through 2009, for example, he credits LEED projects with 780 million avoided vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 15 billion gallons of water saved. He finds that operating energy use in 2009 led to CO2 emissions reductions of 2.9 million tons. He then extends these estimates to 2020 and 2030, with magnified results.

Watson’s overall conclusion – at least in terms of carbon emission reductions – is that LEED is effective but is not going far enough to help head off a climate crisis. In reaching this assessment Watson does take time to address accusations that LEED buildings may not be saving any energy at all – that debate was covered in detail in a previous post. His arguments are unlikely to win over the skeptics – but that’s a tough thing to do.

In producing this report he has had to radically oversimplify the analyses, any one of which could easily become fodder for more than one doctoral thesis. And it’s worth noting that, as the “father of LEED,” he’s hardly the most unbiased of analysts one could pick to take this on. But he cares enough to do it and is willing to put out numbers for others to react to, both of which are worth a lot.

Looking at the specific analyses, I think he has managed to radically overstate the impact of LEED and radically understate it. Yes, both, at the same time. Whether or not the two cancel each other out to make his estimates valid – well, we’ll have to wait for those doctoral candidates to sort that out.

Source: www.BuildingGreen.com

www.DVWise.com