Top Navigation

USGBC: No Such Thing as LEED Decertification?

A pair of recent articles  – one in the San Antonio Business Journal by attorney Bradley Carson, the other in the Multifamily Executive - suggest that our article here at GRELJ back in December about the ongoing Northland Pines High School certification challenge created some confusion about (i) “decertification” under LEED Version 3.0; and (ii) the grounds on which the Northland Pines appellants are challenging the high school’s LEED Gold certification under LEED for New Construction Version 2.1. For those reasons, although USGBC is still evaluating the Northland Pines challenge, I do think it is worth revisiting the story and the specific remarks in these articles which have created the confusion in the interim.

First, here’s the language from Mr. Carson’s article which appears to have generated the controversy:

“As reported by the Villas County News-Review, a group of Wisconsin residents filed a 125-page complaint with the USGBC challenging the award of the LEED Gold certification to Northland Pines, which is generally credited as the first certified LEED Gold high school. The challenge was based on a little discussed provision in LEED 2009, which reserves the USGBC’s ability to revoke certification a project that fails to meet the program’s ‘Minimum Program Requirements,’ which include requirements for minimum occupancy rates, site boundaries, and information-sharing about the project’s energy and water usage for five years after certification. It was reported that the USGBC sent independent examiners to Wisconsin to conduct on-site tests at Northland Pines to determine the project’s qualifications for LEED, and that a final determination on the school’s eligibility for LEED would be decided in early 2010.”

Note the bold language (my emphasis) which is not correct; the challenge is not based on any provision in LEED 2009′s Minimum Program Requirements. Rather, the Northland Pines High School was certified under LEED Version 2.1; unlike LEED Version 2.0, the former version required projects for the first time to satisfy every prerequisite of each credit category in order to earn certification. (Previously, under Version 2.0, projects could still earn certification even if they did not satisfy the prerequisite for each individual credit category). The appellants’ specific allegations relate to the project design’s alleged failure to satisfy certain Energy & Atmosphere prerequisites, which, if accurate, would be grounds for USGBC/GBCI to revoke the school’s Gold certification. In early February, a USGBC spokesperson responded to Mr. Carson’s article with some very general clarifications in an insert in Engineering News-Record (which stated, among other items, that Mr. Carson’s piece contained “several inaccuracies, causing unnecessary anxiety in the marketplace”).

In the Multifamily Executive article, which dates from last month, USGBC’s Scot Horst further responded to Mr. Carson’s article as follows:

“‘The idea that there is this new thing call decertification is inaccurate,’ says Scot Horst, USGBC’s senior vice president for LEED. ‘The way LEED works is we have a rating system; you send us information about your project, and we certify to that. But let’s say that there was someone out there who lied about the prerequisite information or unintentionally provided inaccurate information. We have always had a policy to go back and say this wasn’t what it was represented to be. That is nothing new.’”  (emphasis added).

As far as decertification is concerned, USGBC and GBCI have clearly reserved the right to revoke certification from projects that fail to satisfy the Minimum Program Requirements. While that may not be any different from what the organization has been doing all along (hence the question mark in the title to this article), the introduction to the LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance document (Version 1.0, November 2009) clearly states on page 3 that “[i]f it becomes known that a LEED project is or was in violation of an MPR, certification may be revoked, or the certification process may be halted. These situations will be handled on a case by case basis according to GBCI’s challenge policy.”  However, it appears that the confusion over “decertification” stems from a conflation of a LEED project owner’s failure to report performance data with LEED buildings that actually perform poorly. Consider these remarks from Multifamily Executive:

“The fear of decertification likely stems from one of the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) of LEED 2009. The MPRs, which apply only to projects seeking certification under LEED 2009, list the basic characteristics that a project must possess to be eligible for certification under the LEED 2009 rating systems. Requirement No. 6 states that “all certified projects must commit to sharing with USGBC and/or GBCI [Green Building Certification Institute] all available actual whole-project energy and water usage data for a period of at least five years.”

But the information collected under MPR6 is for research purposes only and won’t be used to penalize project teams with buildings that do not perform as well as intended, according to the LEED 2009 Supplemental Guidance document published in November 2009.

‘MPR6 specifically is an exercise to improve the future iterations of LEED rather than to strip the certification from prior program participants and all information remains confidential,’ says USGBC communications manager Ashley Katz. ‘LEED certification is granted based on a building’s design and construction at the time certification is sought. LEED certification does not evaluate the ongoing operation or maintenance of a building—there are too many factors that have to do with how the building is operated.’”  (emphasis added).

I think it’s also worth repeating here that there is absolutely no connection between the Northland Pines proceeding and the Minimum Program Requirements that generated the initial buzz about decertification last summer. (However, it is important to note that the Northland Pines certification challenge appears to be taking place under the GBCI Certification Challenge Policy, which did not exist at the time the high school earned LEED Gold. The general lack of transparency about this process is troubling, but I am willing to give USGBC/GBCI the benefit of the doubt until we get a decision on the challenge before passing final judgment.  For example, will the organizations make certification challenge materials available to the public for third party review? If not, what about down the line in jurisdictions where public money is funding LEED projects whose certifications may be challenged? If for no other reason, the Northland Pines proceeding is critical for practitioners to keep an eye on from a procedural, legal perspective, as it appears USGBC and GBCI have not previously confronted such a serious challenge.)

Also, note that the LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance document states on page 27 with respect to MPR No. 6 that “this MPR does not intend to penalize project teams with buildings that do not perform as well as intended or create insurmountable technical or legal barriers to registering a LEED project.” (emphasis added).

With respect to this latter point, you will recall that MPR No. 6′s requirements to share whole-building performance data “must carry forward if the building or space changes ownership or lessee.” Page 27 of the Supplemental Guidance document (under “Specific Allowed Exceptions”) notes that

“[t]o own a LEED certified project is to participate in the ongoing evolution of the green building movement. In that spirit, and in keeping with the intent of this MPR, the owner’s commitment to provide whole-building energy and usage data is expected to carry forward to the next owner if all or part of a LEED certified project is sold, re-assigned, or otherwise transferred. However, it is recognized that this may not always be possible, and GBCI will respect the realities of situations in which reasonable efforts to maintain the commitment are not successful. In this situation, the initial building owner will no longer be required to provide the data or access to the data.”

So, although the concept of USGBC/GBCI policing their buildings for MPR enforcement will remain an issue, and practitioners will still need to understand and translate MPR requirements into contract documents and leases, some of the initial concerns about LEED 2009 decertification raised both here at GRELJ and elsewhere may turn out to be unwarranted.

Finally, here’s what Horst had to say in Multifamily Executive about Northland Pines:

So what’s the deal with the LEED Gold-certified Northland Pines High School in Wisconsin referenced in the Business Journal as potentially facing decertification? “We are reviewing the project to make sure that what was represented in the [LEED] documentation was accurate,” Horst says. “That is consistent with what a good certification program would do.” He declined to comment on who brought the project to the USGBC’s attention for review.

As far as the current status of the Northland Pines proceeding goes, I am told that the complaint (which was filed in late 2008, according to USGBC as quoted in ENR) is still being evaluated by USGBC, GBCI, and their technical consultants.

As always, we’ll continue to update you on this critical story.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to USGBC: No Such Thing as LEED Decertification?

  1. Bradley Carson March 24, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    As the writer of the first piece, I just wanted to say that we completely missed that it was a proceeding under the prior version of LEED and not v.3. While we based the story on the Vilas County News-Review’s articles, we should have confirmed the exact conditions on this review were under v2.1. There is no excuse for missing that fact (though the factual error, from my view, did not change the general intent of the article…LEED can go away and practitioners should plan accordingly). Subsequent attempts to revise it before the Business Journal reprinted in in other cities were not successful.

    I offered, through the Business Journal, to go point-counter-point with the USGBC in a later article.

    The USGBC may not be comfortable with the term “Decertification”, but it is a reality that must be dealt with.

    I, for one, am not comfortable advising a client that the “does not intend” language in the Supplemental Guidance provides enough comfort that the data will not be used against the project. I am also concerned that the data could be used as evidence of a design flaw.

    LEED is a great program. I did it a disservice with some inaccurate reporting. Nevertheless, I do think that the primary concerns I raised in the article are still relevant.

    • Stephen Del Percio March 26, 2010 at 2:44 am #

      Thanks for this comment, Brad, and I do agree with you that the broader concepts you suggested in your article are still relevant and important to consider from a risk management perspective.

  2. Timothy R. Hughes March 24, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    Great comment and clarification Brad, that is stepping up to the plate.

    Great treatment of the topic as well Stephen.

    I was at a seminar last week where the Chair of USGBC Maryland indicated there were actually three pending decertification cases. I remember your post on the Northland Pines matter, have you heard about the other two?

    (He also dropped the bombshell about the shift in GBCI’s handling of LEED certifications which led to this: http://www.valanduseconstructionlaw.com/2010/03/articles/green/leed-1/is-usgbc-going-to-gut-gbci-administered-leed-certifications/).

    • Stephen Del Percio March 26, 2010 at 2:46 am #

      One of the articles in the Vilas County News-Review quoted a USGBC spokesperson as saying that the organization gets certification challenges every now and again, but mostly over the level of certification and not to revoke the LEED designation based on the project’s alleged failure to satisfy a prerequisite (or MPR as the case might be under LEED Version 3.0). Not sure if the USGBC-MD person was referring to those or if there are others out there- obviously I’d be interesting in knowing if it was the latter.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. USGBC: No Such Thing as LEED Decertification? (updated) - AEC Forensics - October 6, 2010

    [...] Link: USGBC: No Such Thing as LEED Decertification? (updated) [...]

Leave a Reply