Greenline | Design / Technology / Sustainability

Henry Gifford, in a recent research paper titled ‘A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings’, offers a well reasoned counter assessment of the USGBC’s interpretation of energy efficiency in LEED buildings, specifically those results announced at the 2007 GreenBuild relating LEED certification to energy performance. In effect, he argues that there is disparity between the clear success LEED has had promoting a ‘green’ culture and the actual measured results in terms of energy use. Gifford even suggests that, based on his reading of the data, LEED buildings ‘consume more energy that comparable buildings.’ The paper closes by echoing many common complaints with the LEED system and then suggesting the system be abolished in favor of a method based on ‘verifiable energy use measurements.’

To be honest this argument is not new. It is a common sentiment among many of the more experienced green building practitioners, especially those that worked in the field during the thirty years when sustainability existed only on the fringes of the building industry. Gifford approaches the discussion from a fresh point of view, and uses data supplied by the USGBC to make his case. Still, the line of reasoning follows a more strict definition of ‘green’ than is palatable to many industry participants and the general public and it will probably not reach the target audience in the same way the highly digestible LEED message can, which is unfortunate.

Mr. Gifford is a self-trained building scientist specializing in energy efficiency with a special focus on boiler systems. He is not new to the green building industry. Years of repairing, owning and designing buildings in NYC have taught him, through experience, how to make a building energy efficient. In fact, Gifford was recently dubbed ‘The Boiler Man’ in a fascinating article by The New Yorker magazine, because of his passion for building systems and the exhaustive three day tour he gives of NYC boiler rooms. In the closing quote from that article, Gifford describes the culture surrounding building system maintenance:

“[...] Boiler work has zero or negative social status. And this ratio also influences the quality of work to be gotten from a person working in that field. In the basement, there’s money, but there’s no status. This doesn’t mean you’re dumb if you work in the basement. It just means that you’re not expected to be smart. The fact is, excellence is not expected in the basement.”

This is a profound and spot-on statement about the attitude we have towards facilities maintenance and building systems. Such attitudes are a significant obstacle to buildings being more energy efficient, and will have to change in order for progress to be made. Interestingly it appears Gifford’s passion began with a simple question about a discrepancy between a few buildings he managed. He asked himself why ‘one building used four times as much fuel as another [of comparable size].’ I imagine that he set about finding out the ‘why’ by actually going into the boiler room and finding out, and from there stems the crux of his argument, that predictions and simulations do not translate into real world energy efficiency. The design is only one part of a larger set of imperatives that must be fulfilled in order to achieve energy efficiency.

The research paper is definitely worth a read for anyone wanting a rounded perspective on the USGBC and LEED. I tend to agree on the general point that LEED is not concentrated enough on energy efficiency and that there needs to be a much more rigorous analysis of the energy consumption of LEED vs non-LEED buildings. It seems to me that now we need to find a diplomatic way to ensure energy efficiency becomes part of the milieu of the building industry. Sooner or later we will have no choice.

For more information visit Henry Gifford’s website or watch the following video of him lecturing on the subject.