Don't know the details yet, but it was only a matter of time.

He must be a Republican. And, someone needs to check his stock portfolio for oil companies.

I find what is acceptable to LEED for certification to be sometimes less than aboveboard.

It sounds like one of two scenarios is playing out: 1) attorneys who specialize in class action lawsuits have been out trawling, or 2) one of the "competing" systems in the market place is trying to undercut the efforts of thousands of people who have helped push this forward from the grass roots. Which one is it?

I am surprize that Mechanical Designer file a Law suit - for what reason? I understand contractor may have some problem to produce all required submittal - but designer! I agreed with "Good" - He must be a Republican agaisnt of environment OR he must be a very rich fellow

I don't see what someones political registration has to do with this. I am surprised at the tone of your post that you didn't just BIOB blame it on Bush like most of the democrats who are now starting a class war ( it's those terrible people making over 250K that are the problem) and the Tres Sect'y who is starting a trade war by blaming the Chinese who seem to have more faith in our economy than we do. Isn't it interesting that those Goldman Sacks people deep 6ed their main competitor Lehman and then changed the mark to market rules that would have saved them a few month later. This I believe was the precipitating factor in the credit freeze. Thank you Obama for learning on the job. Think we should have hired Donald Trunp and not the apprentice?

PS as to the merits This standard began as a building envelope standard. I find their insight into the MEP area still under construction and therefore not surprised that something like this has happened. I believe there is another similar situation with a Wisconsin School as well. They would have been well advised to collaborate with ASHRAE vs. going out on limbs they don't know as much about then they thought.

Does this mean that Gifford Fuel Savings won't have a display at Greenbuild 2010.

LEED has drawn attention to energy savings which is good, but they definitely do not have enough (any) science behind their requirements. On LEED buildings I have worked on, boiler and HWHs claiming to be 95% efficient are actually 88% efficient, consultants over estimate energy models significantly, etc. Hopefully LEED continues to refine its requirements to demand more meters on individual equipment so it can be traced where energy is spent as well as eliminate points given based on cost of energy, materials, etc.

Mike, I agree that we don't know enough about this case to draw conclusions about the plaintiff's politics, or their motives. But to say that, and then immediately launch into an anti Democratic Party diatribe, makes you look like a knee jerk reactionary and a hypocrite. I'm sure you are neither of those so you might want to take a moment of self-reflection before hitting the Post button.

We have two silver LEEDS buildings in our town. One has no windows facing south, their major window walls face north and east. There were so many space heaters in use during the winter that it was a joke.The other building also has all its windows facing north and east. They hung a visqueen ceiling at 10' last winter to try and control the heat loss. They won on "pretty points" not efficiency.

Hello, Henry Gifford is a serious building scientist that is concerned that LEED buildings are not performing very well from an energy standpoint. While USGBC has done a great job branding their product, many question its claims. The Germans with their Passive House standard and the English with BREEAM (by far the worlds most adopted standard) don't highly regard LEED. In discussing LEED with a world renowned German architect, he used the word propaganda. USGBC is in Washington on K Street and while a non-profit it is BIG business. A lawsuit in Connecticut ruled making LEED law as a violation of the antitrust laws. What has upset Henry Gifford was a report that BPI did for USGBC in which he determined that the USGBC was manipulating the numbers and in fact that LEED buildings to date are actually performing worst than the national average. There is a ton of stuff out on the net but this is a good place to start in understanding where Henry is coming from: http://www.buildinggreen.com/live/index.cfm/2008/9/2/Lies-Damn-Lies-and-Are-LEED-Buildings-iLessi-Efficient-Than-Regular-Buildings Also LEED got slammed in this Yale review: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/leed_building_standards_fail_to_protect_human_health/2306/ LEED is having growing pains. It is nice to see post occupancy in version 3.0. It is at a crossroads, and at a time for true leadership. If they continue to focus on market share while ignoring results and impacts of their buildings it is trouble...

LEED is a tool, nothing more. The thought process behind it is and should be an evolving method of becoming more aware of our built environment and its effects on our well being. My own office is LEED silver. The focus is on the work environment and the fundamentals of green building. I could have achieved Gold by spending more $ with a diminishing return but chose to do the economical wise choice and build the doable. As far as any lawsuit goes, it seems to me it is a brute force approach to effect change in a system from the outside. Has there been input for future iterations of the LEED program concerning these issues? I believe so but whether or not implementation takes place remains to be seen. Any of the rating systems needs a buyin by the public to succeed. The suit could be designed to discredit or simply point out a weakness in an otherwise broadbased plan. Time will tell.

Please no politics or rants about Republicans or Democrats on here! Are we not getting enough already in the news and in the media? Why do some people always look for a reason to interject politics into every discussion? While I admire the lofty and admirable goals of "green" building design it is true, according to multiple surveys, that there is no direct link between a LEED rating and actual energy performance post-construction. M&V studies have shown significant shortcomings in energy performance for many LEED buildings. What is a real shame is the green building design professionals that simply chase after LEED points to get higher scores (so they can look good in their client's eyes) regardless of the economic justification of the energy-saving features they specify. Just this week I read about the new middle school in Irving, TX that is a net-zero design, using a huge solar array and two wind turbines, where they admit the construction cost was $200/sf with ECMs having a 15 year payback! The last wind potential map I looked at the Dallas area was nowhere near adequate to justify wind power. Of course the wind turbines will look great and fool most of the taxpayers into thinking their tax dollars are being well spent. Folks this is less than a 7% ROI. Until LEED requires each ECM to be measured by incremental cost/benefit and life-cycle cost then the owners (in this case taxpayers) will continue to spend extra money with a very poor economic justification in the name of LEED ratings.

It is good to question LEEDâ„¢ results; this helps provide a framework for constructive improvement. Problems that are recognized can be positioned for solutions, and the most creative solutions come from rational dialogue. Yes, it is important to know about poor design, or worse, improper numbers, and actions need to have consequences. Still, let's try to look for collaborative solutions. Unfortunately, many of the above comments appear to rely on emotions and digression. Healthy dialogue requires a mature give and take, and there is no substitution for open and honest discussion.

I'm an architect and LEED AP and as of yet have not been able to use my 'skills'. Meeting LEED requirements is very expensive and is the first thing to be value engineered out of a project. LEED's intensions are good but go overboard and meeting the requirements often leaves people to throw their hands up in frustration. After spending all the money to get that plaque - I'm not surprised to hear buildings aren't living up their said efficiencies. Needs more study and less hype.

I'm an architect and LEED AP and as of yet have not been able to use my 'skills'. Meeting LEED requirements is very expensive and is the first thing to be value engineered out of a project. LEED's intensions are good but go overboard and meeting the requirements often leaves people to throw their hands up in frustration. After spending all the money to get that plaque - I'm not surprised to hear buildings aren't living up their said efficiencies. Needs more study and less hype.

USGBC only recently added credits for energy efficiency to the LEED program. The early versions of LEED gave very little credit for energy efficiency in our buildings yet EE is identified as having the greatest impact on GHG emmision reduction so why wouldn't the LEED program focus on EE provide more credits for achieving it in their designs? I am in agreement with the Class Action... USGBC has been focussed on the wrong priorities... EE first, everything else comes later... Lets talk white relfelctive roofs for a minute... LEED rewards the designer with credit for a cool reflective roof, the roof gets dirty and loses more than half it's reflectivity in a year... then what? White roofs have been shown to cause more problems in cold climates and provide very little cool roof benefit... yet the point is still given in LEED... and worst of all... these roofs last on average 16 years according to the National Roofing Contractors Association so the roof is cool white for less than a year, causes condensation in colder climates creating the potential for mold and is sent to landfill on average in 16 years... and LEED rewards a points for what???

Someone needs to break the cycle of these groups that make rules for there clubs. If you are not part of the club, then you don't get the bid. If you don't conform to the little box, then you don't qualify. Leed is horse manure and so is the USGBC. Use common sense. The government should not be involved in anything but war. Everything they touch, they destroy.

I'm happy to see someone finally stand up to LEED - the LEADERS in EXTRA ENERGY DESIGN! The fact LEED does not allow the IAQ Procedure from ASHRAE 62 ensures that more energy will be required. My company has designed hundreds of jobs using the IAQ method at 5 CFM per person without any issues and great energy savings. LEED law is one of the fastest growing segements...the new mold is LEED!

The lawsuit asks for $100,000,000. What is Henry's potential take of that amount? Henry, Henry, Henry...you are a sad little man. Visions of grandeur and dollar signs are dancing in your head. Stop listening to attorneys who are whispering their sweet nothings to you. Aren't you a better person than this? In Green Building Law Update (online), Chris Cheatham wrote the following: You may be wondering what is the motivation of the plaintiff, Henry Gifford, to file this lawsuit? The answer appears on page two: "L.E.E.D.-accredited professionals are often, and increasingly, people with 'no experience whatsoever.' When L.E.E.D.-accredited professionals design and build buildings instead of skilled professionals, such as the Plaintiffs, with years of experience making safe, comfortable, and energy-efficient environments, the marketplace, consumers, and the environment often suffer." LEED accredited professionals can't be skilled professionals? I have a feeling some readers will take umbrage at that statement. Well said, Chris.

I am an Architect and LEED AP professional and I am satisfied to see that the USGBC is finally going to be held accountable for the propaganda--masked in the cloak of LEED--which it has been propagating to the design community and the public. As Architects, it is our responsibility to apply sustainable principals to the design process--this is what we learned in school. Anything less, and we are not living up to our responsibilites as design professionals and in essence are failing in protecting the health, safety and welfare of those who inhabit the buildings we are entrusted with. Hopefully, this lawsuit will be the beginning of the end for the LEED Rating System. Eliminating the rating system and the politics associated with it, will hopefully allow the USGBC to focus its efforts on being a thinktank--working together more closely with product manufacturers and industry organizations (i.e. ASHRAE, ASTM, AAMA, NFRC, NIBS) in the pursuit of providing a trusted resource to the design community. The ultimate goal being to bring cost-effective, energy-efficient, sustainable design solutions to our built environment.

the cloak of LEED as the model of sustainability may indeed be tossed to the wayside, as a result of Henry Gifford's clever and selfless action. LEED is simply another box, very well packaged and marketed, slightly improved from code, but certainly not the tool to allow buildings to become all they can be. Certainly not the model of sustainability, which demands that we think out of the box.

As a recent 19 year veteran and past Chairman of the ASHRAE committee that sets the LEED energy benchmark, and as a practitioner who also sees the actual utility bills for thousands of buildings, both new, old, and LEED, I can tell you that most LEED buildings have energy performance no better than most new and old buildings, and in too many cases, it is worse. Between compliance with ASHRAE 90.1 and the measures that many people use to get more LEED energy points, buildings have become so complex that they cannot be operated efficiently, and too often they waste energy efficiently. The widely publicized LEED Platinum ASHRAE Headquarters Building is just one example. That no one has produced and published comprehensive metered energy data from LEED buildings to contradict the conclusions by Henry Gifford and others in more than two years since the NBI/USGBC report was published speaks volumes. Larry Spielvogel, PE, FASHRAE

But one thing in defense of LEED is that it is iterative and democratic, so things that are wrong or ineffective in one version can be corrected in the next. Also, no one is obliged to sign on, and by signing on you become part of the democracy that creates the rules. LEED could be better, but it will be.

We will all have to watch this closely, and can't judge too quickly until we know more details about this lawsuit. Is it from someone actually trying to make a needed change in the LEED rating system, or is it someone with a political agenda or just a get rich quick scheme? From the comments here, it does seem like the LEED rating system has been derailed somewhat from it's original goal. If some people are using it more as a marketing tool to charge higher rents on their buildings just by getting as many LEED points as possible, regardless of the overall benefits, then that is wrong, and needs to be addressed. The LEED system is an ever-evolving system, hopefully getting better all the time. While it is not perfect, it's the best system we have right now. If there are problems, then they need to be identified and fixed. Hopefully that would come from honest and un-objective evaluation from within, not from external lawsuits. I believe that with LEED 3.0, there are more requirements for monitoring and collecting data after a project is completed. So hopefully soon they will have more data with which to honestly assess energy efficiency. And if it shows that LEED buildings are falling short of their projected energy savings, than something will need to be done. A lot of it boils down to the choices we as design professionals make. We shouldn't try to rack up LEED points just for the sake of it, or to try and get higher rents, or to impress our clients. We shouldn't suggest wind turbines to our clients if the geography of the site is not conducive to using wind power. We have to be honest with ourselves and with our clients. The LEED rating system is a tool for us to use. How we use it is up to us. And if others are using it in a way that is derailing it from it's original purpose, then it is up to us to find a way to improve the system so that does not happen. And if we find that system is not getting us the energy efficiency results that we expected, then we have to modify and improve upon it until it does. So we should not abandon the LEED system as some people are suggesting. We just need to fix it if it needs fixing! And that involves more than just making comments on an article. Maybe if more of us get involved with LEED and the USGBC and try to keep it on the path it was originally intended from within, then there won't be the complaints and lawsuits against it.

Let's not forget that LEED represents a much broader world view that extends beyond just the energy equation. Energy is a piece of the puzzle, but not the only piece. Emphasis is also placed on the creation of a built environment that creates healthy spaces for the occupants; urban planning issues such as higher density and transportation; efficient use of water; social equity issues; etc. etc. etc. LEED is a comprehensive system that is attempting to take a humanistic approach to our interaction with the built environment. It is a wholistic system that has evolved from the grass roots involvement of many people. It continues to morph and respond to the higher expectations of the market. Discussions like this will only strengthen the resolve of those committed to making it better. LEED is not going away.

I have been a LEED AP for 6 years. No suprise here. I have anticipated this action for sometime. I'm only suprised it has taken this long. I will watching for the details.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until the the financial records of USGBC are released in court. Per the 2008 tax return USGBC had $64,000,000 in income and $34,000,000 in expenses leaving $30,000,000 in the bank at the end of the year. They have list 27 employees working 3 hours per week recieving over $50,000 per year in compensation. Fedrizzi pulled down over $450,000 all by himself. With al htat money being absorbed combined with the incompetence of the LEED reviewers this lawsuit will expose USGBC for what it really is, a money grab!

As one of the two experts involved in preparing the Northland Pines appeal, I am amazed and dismayed by the ignorance, arrogance and pure speculation shown in the posted comments. From the very beginning, LEED has listed compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standards 62.1 and 90.1 as prerequisites for obtaining LEED certification. Applicants are required to certify that the designs meet these requirements. Under USGBC's own rules, projects that do not meet these prerequisites do not qualify for LEED certification at any level. So, do all LEED certified projects actually meet those requirements? In my experience, no. At Northland Pines, we documented 2,333 separate violations in just half of the HVAC systems. All of these violations were backed up with carefully prepared and fully compliant calculations. When the designers certified that the facility met those prerequisites, they committed fraud. USGBC told the appellants, months in advance of their "determination" that they were not going to withdraw the certification, they suborned that fraud. The "experts" who brought in by USGBC to do a hit job on on the appeal, failed to support their determination with so much as a single computation to refute the thousands prepared by the appellants. In doing so, these "experts" acted to conceal the fraud. After the fact, USGBC changed the rules of appeal to make it both more difficult and extremely expensive to contest a LEED award. The Northland Pines Appeal was about designer fraud, claiming to have met requirements where no attempt to actually meet them were made. That is why the Northland Pines appeal is referenced in this class action lawsuit. Anyone interested in reviewing the appeal, the supporting documentation, USGBC's response and/or the appellants rebuttals can find them posed in full on several places on the internet. I have served at the ASHRAE Technical Committee level for 25 years. The other reviewer is a past Member of the ASHRAE Board of Directors and a 23-year veteran and past Chairman of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Committee. This work was also provided to the appellants on a pro bono basis. Why? Because what was done to this community was wrong on so many levels. As such, in the interest of forwarding the goals of environmentally conscious design, I hope the class action lawsuit against USGBC succeeds. In my opinion, the LEED certification process lacks a credible review process and is an open invitation to fraud. Some design firms have figured this out. The way USGBC is operating the program, provides false promises and little of value to the client and is nothing but a marketing scam.

I agree that we ought leave the Republicans and the Democrats out of this. I can also do nicely without the Libertarian's "government should not be involved in anything but war" mudslinging. Yeah - Government makes mistakes, and it is sometimes corrupt. And, yeah, Business makes mistakes, and it is sometimes corrupt. As for war, it's record isn't so hot either - whether public or private. I'm for keeping some creative tension between private and public, thank you. And for stomping out corruption on whichever side of the fence it erupts. What "Party" does that put me in? If LEED is a corrupt standard, and the government has a part in that corruption, or if GBC does, let's shine a big old spotlight right on it. Then deal with the corruption, and update or replace the standard. However, please note: Plenty of people have paid plenty of big money for fancy, under-performing buildings for 100 years before LEED came along to be the target of the blame. I'm part of a team picking up after one right now - so I see it up close and personal. We've moved it from being one of my city's biggest energy hogs to an Energy Star building. And it will probably qualify for LEED Silver for existing buildings. The very real performance improvements are much more important to me than either of the two medals we'll collect. But the two standards gave us some very useful targets and incentives. The overall effect of the standards on the project is definitely positive in this case.

This may sound very ignorant to some, but I've designed over 900 projects over the last 30 years (residential and commercial) and all of my buildings are designed to maximize energy efficiency. Why? TO SAVE THE CLIENT MONEY!!! It has nothing to do with producing less carbon emissions or Saving the Planet. I am not LEED certified and never will be... it's just a Marketing Ploy to get more clients and give yourself an award. Common Sense Design should overrule any LEED certification criteria! If you can save water, get rid of indoor air polution, and create an all around healthier environment for the client, then DO IT! We don't need a crazy point system to keep track of it all! Of course there are some good points to the whole LEED thing, like making designers and clients more aware of how SAVE MONEY on their monthly energy bills, and feeling more comfortable in the building. But when they give points for putting in a shower area so some guy can ride his bike to work instead of destroying the planet by driving his car, that's just plain ridiculus!!! It costs $10,000-$15,000 to pay for that shower! And for what, to get another Point towards a Silver building??? Unbelievable!!!!

While I do know the content of the legal action I am very much aware of the short-comings of the certification program. It has developed more awareness of the need to design buildings that save more energy than merely code compliant buildings. framers of the program lacked sufficient understanding of energy issues in buildings to develop a truly meaning full tool. They start with a premise of being less bad and move down from there. I could cite a number of specifics but will confine myself to my pet peeve, day-lighting. Very little emphasis is placed on the most important strategy with the most potential gain in energy conservation and livability. I live and practice on Bainbridge Island WA. I taught sustainable design for many years. I am dismayed by two "LEED Certified" buildings on the Island that totally ignore this strategy, /the latest flagrant example is a Childrens Museum which proudly broadcasts it's LEED Platinum certification. It is an outrageous claim, other than under the program it is true. The kid's enter a totally windowless (except in the entry) dark artificially lit space that is, in my mind, claustraphobic. Perhaps in the designers mistaken belief that a museum cannot admit natural light for fear of damaging the art. Not only is this claim untrue, this Kiddie Museum is hardly for the celebration of Fine Art, but is rather about children having "pretend" everyday experiences. The only room devoted to any kind of art is also devoid of windows. I am glad my children are beyond the age of having to expose them to such a grim space! This design gives energy conservation a bad name and bad taste in the mouth of users.