Just wanted to point out one glaring but intersting oddity in the new MPR no. 7. The USGBC has been under a great deal of pressure to begin to provide some real data instead of the often “marketing” data it currently distributes. Thus this new requirement in v.3. This attempt is misguided in a number of ways but I will only discuss two apart from the one you intimate.

First, the requirement is essentially to allow the USGBC to acquire the data from the approprate utility (or often utilities) for the metered data. Unfortunately, like much of the scanty due diligence at the USGBC, no meaningful examination of the legal or other implications was done. In at least one state (though I am sure this is the case with many others), an owner does not have the right to share utility data in this manner. The public utility commission forbids by statue any sharing of the actual identifiable metered data with any third-parties. The only parties with access to the utility data are current owners of the property or prospective purchasers of the property. There are various reasons given for this, inculding privacy concerns linked to property specific data streams, but the upshot of this is puzzling for those pursuing LEED v.3 in that state. By definition, none of the owners (let alone subsequent purchasers) pursuing LEED certification will be able to provide for this required access to data, let alone for five years subsequent to the completion of the building. To wit, all these owners will fail to get LEED certification.

The implications of this are staggering. If there are any legislative or regulatory requirements that are, or will be put in place in the jurisdiction of utilities with such statutory prohibitions on sharing metered data, MPR 7 of LEED v.3 will kill the possibiity of proper compliance.

Second, the claim is that this requirement is for research purposes. I am not currently aware of any plan to make this data publicly and freely available as an open data set. If this is not a fully open data set (which could be a real problem for owners whose buildings are performing poorly since this could lead to asset value loss) then there is a serious question as to who has access to it and how it will be used. The current spate of studies “authored” by the USGBC doesn’t give much confidence in either the transparency/credibility of the data or the relevant methodological care.

Given the expiration of this provision within 5 years of occupancy, do you think it continues to be a problem, or is it easily addressed outside of title?

Will