Blogs

I am a licensed architect with 35 years experience and am a LEEDap BD&C accredited professional who has been a "green designer" since the early 1970s.  Based on a quick scan of the law suit documentation, there appears to be a great deal of misrepresentation and apparent misunderstanding of LEED.  For example, it states as a negative that LEED bases it project certification on modeling without actual measurement of performance, but in fact LEED includes/recommends/requires "commissioning" which involves modeling for design purposes but also involves staged verification and confirmation with actual measurements of energy use (by expense) to verify and confirm that the modeled performance is actually met and predicates responses to be taken if it does not perform as designed.  Thereby, LEED does involve measurment confirmation by refernece, just as it includes meeting ASHRAE 90.1 and other standards rather than opposing them as stated in the law suit text. LEED affirms codes and standards and incorporates them by reference (as well as direct inclusion) rather than opposing them,.  LEED is a tool to predict then confirm compliance in terms of performance both energy-wise and in terms of environmental protection against pollution in many forms (odor, toxic elements, excessive light, excessive sound and heat, and inadequate ventilation as evaluated using established standards such as ASHRAE and others).   I see the law suit as nothing more than the disgrundled complaining of someone who feels oppressed or inhibited primarily due to their own ethnocentric attitudes and possible lack of competetive qualifications.  LEED is a useful tool to assure qualified design professionals (architects and others) are in the market and have the current training and documentation tools needed to provide clients and the public in general with a safer, healthier, and more enjoyable and controllable built environment in which to live, work, and play.

 

Larry B. Mast, AIA, LEEDap BD&C