Should we adopt a goal of ALL BUILDINGS net zero energy by 2050, as advocated by the World Green Building Council? Wouldn't it be far cheaper, faster and more feasible instead to focus on 100% renewable energy for entire countries by 2050? That would make all buildings effectively "net zero," wouldn't it?
Big news last week: A USGBC press release reported a new academic study that shows that LEED-certified homes in Texas sell for 8% more, equivalent to about $25,000, and that all “green-certified” homes sell for a 6% premium, equivalent to about $19,000 more. Turns out, there’s more than a few shades of gray to the conclusions in the report.
New LEED project certifications in the US fell 9% in the first half of 2017 compared with 2016, showing once again that the system is in dire trouble, as more project teams see no reason to put up with the cost and hassle of LEED, unless clients demand the certification plaque. Is this the beginning of the end for widespread use of LEED in the US?
New LEED project registrations in the US fell 75% in the first half of 2017 compared with 2016, showing once again that the system is in dire trouble, as more project teams see no reason to put up with the cost and hassle of LEED, unless the clients demand the certification plaque. Is this the beginning of the end for widespread use of LEED in the US?
In its first three years on the market, LEEDv4 registered less than 5% of all new LEED projects, with the balance going to the cheaper and easier-to-understand LEED 2009. This does not bode well for the future of new project registrations, now that LEEDv4 is the only LEED system available for project registrations.
LEED project certifications in commercial interiors increased in 2016 after falling in 2014 and 2015. Retail project certifications also increased. Still, both totals are very small compared to the huge size of both 86 billion sq.ft. of nonresidential floor space and 1.1 million retail buildings.
LEED, Trump, Alternative Facts, and the Resistance: The truth behind LEED's propaganda piece from last week is something quite different than what the US Green Building Council says, in these very expensive ads running in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Of course, in the new political climate anyone can claim anything with very little in the way of response. But I do think some of the claims are so preposterous that they warrant a little response. Take a look!
While the trend in US certifications of existing nonresidential buildings is up quite modestly the past three years, the numbers are still shockingly low: less than 700 projects certified annually since 2010. This number represents each year only slightly more than one in 10,000 (0.01%) of the 5.8 million US nonresidential buildings.
In 2016 LEED use in US higher education projects fell precipitously, declining more than 50% from 2015 levels. Talking to one higher education facility manager last month, he indicated that while the campus was going to continue to build to green building standards embodied in LEED, he saw no benefit to further certifications on future construction projects. He also said it had become a "hard sell" to campus administrators. So in one sense, LEED has succeeded in having its standards used; in another sense, it has failed to communicate enough value for the cost to get campus officials to use it.