North College Hill – courtesy SFA Architects
Ed. 11.12.12: Since the post below went live, many commentators and critics alike have resoundingly called for hard data (rather than projections or models) to substantiate the benefits of LEED. The OFCC estimates and projections below are just that … estimates and projections … but the Central Ohio Chapter of the USGBC is partnering with Battelle to scientifically evaluate the data from the appx. 300 LEED registered or certified Ohio green schools to compare things like first cost, lifecycle costs, absenteeism, and occupant performance. This robust data set could either quantify or impugn the value of LEED. Efforts are ongoing to secure additional funding for this effort (called the “Green Schools Compendium”) so stay tuned.
It’s ironic that USA Today, the newspaper that was ridiculed for picking a dot for its new logo, would miss the point so grievously in the first installment of its series on LEED. OGBL will leave it to commentators like Nadav Malin and Lloyd Alter to address the myriad big-picture flaws & oversights in the article, and we will instead focus on one Ohio-specific reference that is particularly misleading.
Buried in the middle of the article is the provocative claim that “Public LEED buildings typically cost taxpayers extra. In Ohio, LEED certification for new state-funded schools has added $131 million in construction costs since 2007.” Budget hawks would surely be livid about such a nonsensical waste of public dollars … unless they knew that the whole truth is the exact opposite of what the article implies. Although the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission confirms that the expense data is roughly accurate, the OFCC points out that the estimated return on energy savings is just 5 years, projected savings will double the initial expenditure in appx. 10 years, and the buildings will be around for as much as 50+ years. You do the math and decide if this is an egregious waste of public funds or a prudent long-term investment.
Now that LEED has become the national (if not global) standard-bearer for green construction, there’s certainly no harm in reasoned critique of the rating system, which even its staunchest proponents acknowledge is far from perfect. But twisting data from Ohio is dirty pool. Ohio is the #1 state in the country in high-performance green school construction, the OFCC recently celebrated its third LEED Platinum school (North College Hill Middle/High School, pictured above), and the Central Ohio Chapter of the USGBC won national grant funding to study the robust data that will come from these schools and help determine whether or not there is a measurable deviation between LEED and non-LEED schools in energy usage, test scores, and absenteeism.
Remember that green schools are just green buildings, and if they offer lower life-cycle costs, promote greater occupant health, and (oh, yeah) lessen our environmental footprint to boot, then the dialogue shifts from “why build green?” to “why not?” Too bad USA Today missed an opportunity to critically evaluate the legitimate (and numerous) flaws in LEED, and instead chose to sensationalize and mislead, while downplaying or ignoring some of the most relevant benefits of the rating system (here in Ohio and elsewhere).
[...] « USA Today Misses the Point on LEED [...]
What is the added cost of LEED per square foot? What does that 5 year pay back consider? If it is just from energy savings then something is fishy. The total cost of gas and electricity for LEED schools in Ohio is likely close to $33 million. The energy cost per square foot is very close to the energy cost per square foot of older non-LEED schools in Ohio. And very close to the energy cost per square foot of new, non-LEED schools in neighboring states. You are dreaming if you thing there is a break even of the $131 million up front cost after 5 years.
Your question (“added cost of LEED per square foot”) could be relevant, but it is too narrow and vague. Too narrow because up-front cost data is not nearly as significant as life-cycle costs for buildings that will last for decades, and too vague because LEED cost per sq ft differs based on innumable factors that vary from project to project. We already have hard evidence that LEED projects have dramatically reduced construction waste, promoted re-use of materials and use of recycled materials, and reduced water consumption. Anecdotal evidence and many studies to date have also sought to quantify the cost/benefit of LEED and the purported health benefits. The OFCC is working with the USGBC-Central Ohio Chapter to create a comprehensive and scientifically-grounded study of Ohio’s nation-leading array of LEED registered and certified schools to see if there is any statistically significant deviation between LEED and traditionally-constructed schools. The results of this study could help answer some of these important questions.
Thanks for the response. We are talking statistics and averages. I understand each building can be different. My questions are not too narrow because I’m looking at the average across many schools. My questions are not too vauge because I’m looking at the cost pay back that you mention in the article. You said LEED certification cost $131 million and will take 5 years of energy savings to pay off that investment. LEED costs are different for each project and energy savings are different for each project. I’m suggesting to average both numbers using a common denominator, square footage, which is used for many metrics in construction despite all of the variations in construction types.
I’m trying to verify the claim in the article of a 5 year pay back. Rather than just taking the word of the OFCC I am suggesting some metrics to use for verifying this claim. If the buildings need to save 80% of their energy to reach this 5-year payback then this is an unrealistic goal since none of the schools are claiming to use such a small amount of energy. I suspect most of the new construction LEED schools in Ohio will use a very similar amount of energy on an averaged, square foot basis as new construction schools in neighboring states that are not LEED certified. If the energy use is the same, then there is no payback. If the energy use is only 5% less (on average) then the payback is decades.
Don’t look at the EAc1 credit for energy savings in these LEED buildings. Look at real energy use based on meter data. Compared against meter data from Non-LEED schools, not some theoretical minimum Code compliant building. If you want to sub-divide the averages then look at average energy used for elementary schools, for middle schools, and for high schools.
Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. As the Editor’s Note of 11.12.12 to this post indicates, the ROI mentioned in the body is a product of estimates and projections. The idea you mention (looking at “real energy use”) is an excellent one, and one that OFCC is currently engaged in doing so with the help of grant funding from USGBC. As you can imagine, this is a significant and costly task (in time and money). The data-gathering phase is ongoing but they hope to be in position to offer some meaningful analysis before the end of this year, not only of energy use, but also of potential impact on occupant health and performance, as energy efficiency is only one of many purported benefits of LEED.