LEED Gold and Platinum must prove cost-effective
This past New Year’s Eve, despite some reservations, President Barack Obama signed a Department of Defense (DOD) funding bill disallowing any military building project to achieve LEED Gold or Platinum unless that project can prove no additional cost in achieving the gold or platinum designation, or a positive return on investment (ROI) for the expenditure.
At first blush this seems like a step backwards for green building supporters, and a hindrance to the big initiatives the military has taken on (like the net zero energy, waste, and water bases) as a leader in the green building movement. But, maybe this is the exact push the green building movement needs to validate its studies demonstrating the positive paybacks and costs associated with creating green, low-energy buildings. It is clear from the lack of decisiveness we have seen in Washington that if the green building movement hopes to keep the momentum it has built over the previous years in creating a more sustainable built-environment, it is going to have to continue to refine its skills in articulating the financial benefits of green buildings. Forcing high-performance buildings to report their financial stewardship, and then having those reports validated by Congress could be a step in the right direction as long as the amount of high-performance projects does not decline.
Check out this article for more information on the DOD legislation.
Having anything connected with the federal government with a positive ROI would be earth shaking to say the least. We need to do more of this type of work to move sustainable systems forward, but, I for one, would like to see the federal government keep their hands out of it — the record of success is not that great.