buildings

Article
Assessment of Energy Credits in LEED-Certified
Buildings Based on Certification Levels and
Project Ownership
Asli Pelin Gurgun 1, * and David Arditi 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpasa Campus, Esenler,
Istanbul 34220, Turkey
2 Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago,
IL 60616, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +90-212-383-5261

Received: 26 December 2017; Accepted: 6 February 2018; Published: 9 February 2018

Abstract: Compared to other categories, the Energy and Atmosphere category contributes the
most to the maximum obtainable points in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) certification system. The objective of the study was to identify the extent to which project
teams take advantage of the credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category of LEED. This study
analyzes the performance of practitioners in achieving points in the Energy and Atmosphere credits
of LEED-New Construction (NC) 2009 for 1500 buildings that received LEED certification in the US.
For a better understanding of the credit patterns, the differences in the performance of practitioners
are investigated relative to certification levels and project ownership. Achievement in credits is
calculated in terms of percent of maximum points (PMP), since the maximum achievable points
differ for each credit. Practitioners’ achievements in the credits were ranked as follows: (1) enhanced
commissioning, (2) optimized energy performance, (3) enhanced refrigerant management, (4) green
power, (5) measurement and verification, and (6) on-site renewable energy. The largest achievement
differences were observed in the on-site renewable energy credit. Concerning building ownership,
investors were found to optimize mostly energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy, but to
mostly skip enhanced refrigerant management. Performance in the measurement and verification
credit was similar for all owner types, whereas investors performed differently from corporations,
and government agencies in the enhanced commissioning credit. Practitioners who recognize these
priorities and differences are expected to be better positioned to make sustainability-related decisions
in building design and construction.

Keywords: LEED; Energy and Atmosphere credits; sustainable construction; green building;
energy efficiency

1. Introduction
Buildings consume a considerable amount of energy and constitute one of the major sources of
adverse impacts on the environment. Buildings account for 19% of global greenhouse gas emissions [1].
In the US, the residential and commercial businesses are responsible for 12% of the total greenhouse
gas emissions due to heating and cooking needs, management of waste and wastewater, and leaks
from refrigerants in homes and businesses [2]. It is essential to ensure sufficient energy supply in the
future [3], and it is also necessary to incorporate measures for energy efficiency into the design and
construction processes [4]. A major objective of sustainable design and construction is to minimize the
adverse impacts of excessive energy consumption.

Buildings 2018, 8, 29; doi:10.3390/buildings8020029 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2018, 8, 29 2 of 20

Federal, state and local authorities either incentivize or mandate sustainable design and
construction in the US [5]. In addition to such programs, marketing demands and environmental
concerns also affect the growing interest in sustainable buildings and systems that certify projects as
green buildings. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) has been used as a green
building certification system since the 2000s in the US and other parts of the world. According to the
United States Green Building Council (USGBC) project directory [6], 107,383 projects are registered for
the certification process across the globe and more than 62,000 of them are located in the US. LEED
is a verification system that consists of several categories organized with prerequisites and credits
for rating the sustainability performance of buildings. It was launched by USGBC and is flexible
enough for use in different type of projects. Building design and construction (LEED BD + C), interior
design and construction (LEED ID + C), operating and maintenance (LEED O + M), and neighborhood
development (LEED ND) are the rating systems applicable to new construction, existing buildings,
schools, healthcare facilities, data centers, warehouses, hospitality facilities, homes, commercial
interiors, multifamily midrise and retail buildings [6].
LEED BD + C: New Construction (NC) is the system applicable to new construction projects.
Buildings can achieve four certification levels—certified, silver, gold and platinum—after earning
points from credit categories in the system. Since its introduction, the system has been updated
many times. The Energy and Atmosphere category accounts for the maximum possible points
compared to the contribution of the other categories in LEED for new construction. The credits
in this category address energy use reduction, energy-efficient design strategies, and renewable energy
sources. In LEED-NC 2009, the Energy and Atmosphere category consists of three prerequisites and
six credits. The prerequisites are mandatory conditions to earn points in every credit. The six credits
account for 35 of the maximum 110 points. According to Illankoon et al. [7], energy related credits
are the key credit criteria not only in LEED-NC 2009, but among other international green building
rating tools. The prerequisites and credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category of LEED-NC 2009
are shown in Table 1.
The level of achievement in LEED points has been analyzed in past studies by different researchers.
The level of achievement in the credits offers insights into projects with LEED certification and provides
patterns and trends about green building design and construction. Todd et al. [8] analyzed the
LEED-NC and Existing Building Operations and Management (EBOM) systems to identify patterns,
trends and strategies in credit achievement changes at different locations in the world, and found that
“EA1—Optimizing energy efficiency” occupied the first rank in the top five highest achieved credits
list. Ma and Cheng [9] used scorecards of 1000 LEED-NC 2009-certified buildings to understand the
achievement of individual credits and related credits. Cheng and Ma [10] analyzed 1381 LEED-certified
buildings to explore the interrelationships between credits and to highlight the high-scoring sustainable
design strategies. Sullivan and Oates [11] examined 53 LEED-NC 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2-certified buildings
in Arizona to identify credit achievement patterns and found that the percentage of possible credits
earned in the Energy and Atmosphere category was 48%. Similarly, Kim and Cheung [12] examined
43 LEED-NC 2.0-certified buildings and found that the achievement in the Energy and Atmosphere
category was 43% on average, but also observed significant differences between projects. Da Silva and
Ruwanpura [13] investigated 42 buildings across Canada certified with earlier versions of LEED for
new construction, and found that the greatest percentage of points in the Energy and Atmosphere
category was “EA1—Optimizing energy efficiency”. Wu et al. [14] report that energy-related credits
remain difficult to obtain for developers based on their research including LEED 2009-certified projects.
The objective of this study is to analyze quantitatively the information about a building inventory
of 1500 silver, gold, and platinum-certified buildings in the US in order to understand energy
and atmosphere related practices. The building scorecards used in the research were registered
to projects available on the USGBC website. The study highlights designers’ performance in Energy
and Atmosphere credits. It identifies and discusses patterns in achieving points relative to certification
levels and building ownership; it pinpoints the strategies currently adopted by practitioners to earn
points; and it explores the challenges that are encountered in undertaking energy efficient design
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 3 of 20

and construction. After describing the methodology used in the research, the paper presents the
findings, and the analysis of the levels of achievement in the different credits in the Energy and
Atmosphere category. It also examines variations in achievement levels attributable to certification
levels (silver, gold, platinum) and type of ownership. The detailed discussion of the findings is
followed by conclusions and recommendations.

Table 1. Energy and atmosphere credit category of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
New Construction (LEED-NC) 2009.

Prerequisites and Credits Points

Prerequisite 1. Fundamental commissioning of building energy systems -
Prerequisite 2. Minimum energy performance -
Prerequisite 3. Fundamental refrigerant management -
EA1—Optimize energy performance 1–19
The minimum energy cost savings percentage
12% 1
14% 2
16% 3
18% 4
20% 5
22% 6
24% 7
26% 8
28% 9
30% 10
32% 11
34% 12
36% 13
38% 14
40% 15
42% 16
44% 17
46% 18
48% 19
EA2—On-site renewable energy
Percentage renewable energy
1% 1
3% 2
5% 3
7% 4
9% 5
11% 6
13% 7
EA3—Enhanced commissioning 2
EA4—Enhanced refrigerant management 2
EA5—Measurement and verification 3
EA6—Green power 2

2. Methodology of the Study

The methodology relies on scorecards of the Energy and Atmosphere credits that were extracted
from the USGBC project database. The database of USGBC includes LEED-certified buildings located
all around the world. The database was filtered for the purposes of the study. Only buildings that
were constructed in the US and that received LEED-NC 2009 platinum, gold, and silver certification
were considered. Other countries and regions were not included because the underlying reasons in
the achievement levels can vary based on local parameters as reported by some researchers [14–16].
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 4 of 20

The data were downloaded and transferred manually to an Excel file by using a macro. Ma et al. [17]
and Todd et al. [8] used similar but automated procedures to perform the transfer. Information
about 1500 buildings was collected, which represents over 103.4 million gross square feet of building
construction in the US. The breakdown of the buildings by certification level is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Breakdown of buildings by certification level.

Certification Level Awarded Achievable Points Number of Buildings

Silver 50–59 747
Gold 60–79 624
Platinum 80 and above 129
Total 110 1500

After extracting the data, three types of analyses were conducted to analyze credits in the Energy
and Atmosphere category:

(i) Calculation of percent of maximum points (PMP) attained in each credit: This part analyzes all
buildings regardless of the certification levels they achieved. The PMPs attained were calculated
to identify achievements in each credit independently.
(ii) Calculation of percent of maximum points (PMP) in each credit by certification level: In this
section, the PMPs of the building inventory were analyzed for three certification levels separately.
First, the PMPs were evaluated for each certification level in order to reveal differences between
levels. Then, the PMPs were assessed to identify how achievements and application trends vary
from one certification level to another.
(iii) Analyzing percent of maximum points (PMP) based on building ownership: This was done to
identify the differences in trends, based on owner type.

3. Analysis of the Findings

The points obtained in each credit are evaluated in Section 3.1. The average achieved points
and the percent of the maximum achievable points (PMP) are recorded. The differences in the PMPs
of different credits are examined based on the level of certification (Section 3.2) and on building
ownership (Section 3.3) to understand achievement patterns using non-parametric statistical tests.
Finally, assessments of each credit are provided separately in Section 4. This part also includes examples
of strategies adopted in real-life projects for improved energy efficiency, which brought points.

3.1. Percent of Maximum Points (PMP) Attained in Each Credit

The average points obtained in each credit indicate the relative convenience with which credit
requirements are satisfied. The higher the average point, the more convenient it is to satisfy the credit
requirement. The analysis reported in this section could improve practitioners’ understanding of the
six credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category, and streamline their strategies in planning how they
will get the necessary points for a desired level of certification. Each credit has a different maximum
achievable point. Therefore, average achieved points in different credits have no comparative value [9].
In this study, the average achieved points were divided by the maximum achievable points to calculate
the percent of maximum points (PMP) for each credit, as in Equation (1):
ci
PMPi = (1)
cimax

where ci is the average achieved points in credit i for the whole building inventory, and ci max is the
maximum achievable point for that credit as specified by LEED. For example:

10.2
PMPEA1 = = 54%.
19.0
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 5 of 20

Table 3 shows the related information about the six credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category.
It can be seen that not a single credit resulted in high scores, which suggests that no credit is intensely
pursued, which in turn reflects the prudent tendencies of project owners and developers in energy
related applications.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of Energy and Atmosphere credits in LEED-NC 2009-certified buildings
in the US.

Credits in the Energy and Atmosphere Category

Points Received
EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6
Max. achievable points 19 7 2 2 3 2
Average achieved points 10.2 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
Standard deviation 5.5 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0
Percent of maximum points achieved (PMP) 54% 22% 59% 53% 34% 50%

In Table 3, 59% of the maximum two points offered by “EA3—Enhanced commissioning” was
attained in the buildings studied. Since the maximum achievable point is two in this credit, a 59%
achievement rate does not directly indicate that this credit is a commonly pursued credit in this
category. There is a prerequisite of this credit that mandates the fundamental commissioning of
building energy systems, for which all registered buildings should qualify. The state-of-the-art
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and automation applications pose additional risks
to sustainable building projects, which can be best managed with a commissioning procedure [18].
Benefits of enhanced commissioning include operational cost savings, catching installation mistakes,
addressing occupant discomfort, enhancing indoor air quality and thermal comfort, prolonging
equipment lifespan, lowering the risk of litigation, and training users to operate the building more
efficiently by outlining the processes to the contractor, the owner, and end users according to the goals
of the project [19]. This credit requires further professional consultancy to verify if there are gaps
between the design intents and the owner’s requirements. Professional commissioning is increasingly
recognized as an effective means of ensuring quality and maximizing energy performance [20].
The analysis suggests that professional commissioning services are indeed commonly utilized by
project owners and developers to mitigate such risks.
According to Table 3, for “EA1—Optimizing energy performance”, 54% of the maximum 19 points
were achieved in the buildings under study, making EA1 the second most achieved credit. Several
strategies are adopted in this credit such as highly efficient HVAC and lighting systems, sophisticated
controls, strategic location of windows, solar light tubes, exterior sunscreens and selecting LED
fixtures [21–23]. Many of these strategies are not difficult to implement, which can lead to earning
higher points. In LEED-NC 2009, Energy and Atmosphere credits account for approximately 32% of
all achievable points. According to USGBC, LEED-certified buildings report 20% lower maintenance
cost than typical commercial buildings. It is reasonable to pursue this EA1 credit seriously since it can
contribute 19 of the 35 credits achievable, with significant cost savings. This result can be interpreted
to mean that energy efficiency measures were commonly implemented in the projects.
This credit was closely followed by “EA4—Enhanced refrigerant management” with 53% of the
maximum two points. The intent here is to reduce ozone depletion. It is surprising that certified
buildings did not achieve a higher percentage of the maximum two points, since most new facilities
use appropriate equipment [21].
“EA6—Green power”, which encourages the development and use of grid-source and renewable
energy technologies received 50% of the maximum two points (Table 3). This credit requires that at
least 35% of the electricity usage be offset with a minimum commitment of two years. Strategies that
can be used to achieve this credit include use of renewable energy credits (RECs) and signing up for
green power programs. The cost and availability of these methods are the major factors affecting the
decision to pursue this credit [24].
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 6 of 20

Only 34% of the maximum three points offered by “EA5—Measurement and verification” was
achieved in the buildings studied. Despite the frequent use of energy efficient technologies and
equipment, the gap between actual and targeted performance was not measured extensively in the
buildings considered in the study.
Buildings 2018, 8, x 6 of 20
Finally, Table 3 also shows that the credit that was least well addressed in the certified buildings
considered
equipment,in this
the study was “EA2—On-site
gap between renewable
actual and targeted energy
performance wascredit” with 22%
not measured of the maximum
extensively in the
sevenbuildings
points achieved
considered oninaverage
the study. (Table 3). This corresponds to as little as 1.6 out of the maximum
Finally,
seven points. LEED Table 3 also shows
promotes that the creditrenewable
the “EA2—On-site that was least well credit
energy” addressed in the certified
to encourage the use of
buildings considered in this study was “EA2—On-site renewable energy
renewable energy technologies in sustainable construction because there is evidence that credit” with 22%the
of adverse
the
maximum seven
environmental impacts points achieved onenergy
of renewable averagetechnologies
(Table 3). This corresponds
are much lower to as little as 1.6
compared toout of the
conventional
maximum seven points. LEED promotes the “EA2—On-site renewable energy” credit to encourage
energy technologies. Several alternative energy sources can be adopted such as the use of sunlight,
the use of renewable energy technologies in sustainable construction because there is evidence that
wind, geothermal sources, and even tidal and ocean waves. The factors that contribute to achieving
the adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy technologies are much lower compared to
lowerconventional
points in this credit can be related to difficulties in producing renewable energy economically
energy technologies. Several alternative energy sources can be adopted such as the use of
and technical risks involved
sunlight, wind, geothermalinsources,
rather novel renewable
and even tidal andtechnologies
ocean waves.[25].
The factors that contribute to
As seen in Table 1, the thresholds and maximum achievable
achieving lower points in this credit can be related to difficulties points have beenrenewable
in producing slightly modified
energy in
LEEDeconomically
v4. For example, “EA2—Optimizing
and technical energy
risks involved in rather performance”
novel that can receive
renewable technologies [25]. up to 19 points in
LEED-NCAs seencan
2009, in Table
get a 1, the thresholds
maximum of 18and maximum
points in LEEDachievable
v4. The points
analysishave been slightly
presented above modified
and in later
in LEED
sections is notv4. For example,
diminished by “EA2—Optimizing energy performance”
these differences because both LEED-NC that2009
can receive
and LEED up tov419address
points the
in LEED-NC 2009, can
same energy and atmosphere issues. get a maximum of 18 points in LEED v4. The analysis presented above and in
later sections is not diminished by these differences because both LEED-NC 2009 and LEED v4
address
3.2. PMPs the same
Attained in energy and atmosphere
Each Credit issues.
by Certification Level
Analyzing the percent
3.2. PMPs Attained in EachofCredit
maximum points Level
by Certification (PMP) in each credit in Section 3.1 does not consider
the differences between different certification levels (silver, gold, platinum). The findings in Table 3
Analyzing the percent of maximum points (PMP) in each credit in Section 3.1 does not consider
outline
thethe generalbetween
differences application trends
different when certification
certification levels (silver,levels
gold, are analyzed
platinum). Theall together.
findings However,
in Table 3
thereoutline
can bethesignificant differences
general application in the
trends preferences
when of users
certification when
levels are they attempt
analyzed to earn
all together. points for
However,
different
therecertification levels.
can be significant For example
differences in theplatinum
preferenceslevel requires
of users whenatheyminimum
attempt of 80 points
to earn pointswhereas
for
silverdifferent
level can be achieved
certification with
levels. Fora example
minimum 50 points.
platinum level In this section,
requires PMPofvalues
a minimum arewhereas
80 points determined
silver
for each levelwith
credit can be achieved
respect with a minimum
to certification 50 and
levels, points. In this section,
analyzed PMP values
to understand howare determined
PMP values differ
for each credit with respect to certification levels, and analyzed to understand
between levels, hence pointing out the commonly pursued credits in each certification level. how PMP values
differ between levels, hence pointing out the commonly pursued credits in each certification level.
3.2.1. PMPs within Certification Levels
3.2.1. PMPs within Certification Levels
Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics, the number of buildings that earned “zero” and the
Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics, the number of buildings that earned “zero” and the
maximum points earned for each certification level. The trends in Figure 1 show that, as expected,
maximum points earned for each certification level. The trends in Figure 1 show that, as expected,
moremore
points were
points earned
were earnedat at
platinum
platinumlevel
level than
than gold level,and
gold level, andmore
more points
points were
were earned
earned at gold
at gold
level level
than than
silver level in all Energy and Atmosphere credits. There seems to be reasonable
silver level in all Energy and Atmosphere credits. There seems to be reasonable consensus consensus
between goldgold
between andandsilver levels
silver with
levels withalmost
almostparallel trendlines,
parallel trend lines,while
whileat at platinum
platinum level,
level, a different
a different
trendtrend
is noted.
is noted.

100% 94%
80% 78%
80% 74%
61% 66%
62%
55% 59%55% 51%
60% 51%
41% 44% Platinum
36%
40% 28% Gold
26%
20% 9% Silver

0%
EA1 (19 EA2 (7 EA3 (2 EA4 (2 EA5 (3 EA6 (2
points) points) points) points) points) points)

Figure 1. Performance of Energy and Atmosphere credits with respect to certification levels.
Figure 1. Performance of Energy and Atmosphere credits with respect to certification levels.
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 7 of 20

Table 4. Average points earned in the Energy and Atmosphere credits for new construction in the US.

Credits in the Energy and Atmosphere Category

Certification Level Number of Points Earned
Awarded Buildings EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6 Total
(19 pts) (7 pts) (2 pts) (2 pts) (3 pts) (2 pts) (35 pts)
Average points earned 7.7 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 12.2
PMP 41% 9% 55% 51% 28% 44%
Silver Certification Standard deviation 4.6 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0
(50–59 points) 747
Number of buildings that
14 640 339 369 462 422
earned “0” points
Number of buildings that
28 39 408 378 167 324
earned “maximum” points
Average points earned 11.7 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 17.9
PMP 62% 26% 61% 55% 36% 51%
Gold Certification Standard deviation 4.9 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0
(60–79 points) 624
Number of buildings that
1 404 238 279 336 301
earned “0” points
Number of buildings that
90 121 378 337 194 313
earned “maximum” points
Average points earned 17.8 5.6 1.5 1.2 2.0 1.6 29.6
PMP 94% 80% 74% 59% 66% 78%
Platinum Certification Standard deviation 2.3 2.4 0.9 1.0 1.3 0.8
129
(80 points and beyond)
Number of buildings that
0 10 33 53 32 28
earned “0” points
Number of buildings that
89 86 96 76 80 101
earned “maximum” points
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 8 of 20

The results of the analysis show that silver certified projects do not achieve high scores in
any of the credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category. Many buildings received zero points.
For example, in EA2—On-site renewable energy, EA3—Enhanced commissioning, EA4—Enhanced
refrigerant management, EA5—Measurement and verification, and EA6—Green power, the number
of buildings scoring zero ranged between 369 and 640. According to Figure 1, “EA3—Enhanced
commissioning” was found to be the most convenient credit to pursue when silver certification is
desired, with 55% of the maximum points in EA3 obtained in projects that aimed for silver certification
(Table 4). This result concurs with the distribution presented in Table 1 that shows that EA3 allows
easy points probably because commissioning services are used often. On the other hand, Figure 1
also shows that “EA1—Optimizing energy performance” (not EA3) was the most convenient credit to
pursue when platinum and gold certifications are sought, with a PMP of 94% and 62%, respectively,
similar to the findings obtained by Todd et al. [8] and Da Silva and Ruwanpura [13]. As stated in
Table 1, EA1 solely accounts for the major portion of the energy and atmosphere credits (19 of the
35 points) and as such is an obvious target when platinum or gold certifications are desired since both
require a large number of points. For example, as seen in Table 4, 89 out of the 129 platinum certified
buildings (70%) attained the maximum achievable 19 points.
EA2 is related to installing on-site renewable energy means to cover the specified amount of energy
required during the life cycle of a building. However, Figure 1 shows that only projects pursuing
platinum certification attained a significant number of points in this credit (80% of the maximum
seven points). Projects that sought gold and silver certifications attained the lowest percent of points
(26% and 9%, respectively) compared to other credits. Platinum certification seekers prefer to get their
points from credits with highly achievable points, namely “EA1—Energy performance” which offers a
maximum of 19 points, and “EA2—On-site renewable energy technologies” which offers a maximum
of seven points. Gold and silver certification seekers, on the other hand, prefer not to take advantage of
the seven points of “EA2—On-site renewable energy technologies” because these technologies require
additional sizeable investments.
The remaining credits in this category (i.e., EA4–6) can provide two or three points each, the sum
of which accounts for a relatively small portion of the Energy and Atmosphere category. It was found in
Figure 1 that “EA4—Enhanced refrigerant management” has received close achievement percentages
in platinum, gold and silver-certified buildings with 59%, 55% and 51%, respectively. It is surprising
that platinum-certified buildings, which have to use the most advanced technologies, methods and
tools to earn the largest number of points record achievements as low as the points received by gold
and silver-certified buildings. This can be related to platinum-certified buildings investing more in
the first two credits (EA1 and EA2) jointly that amount to a maximum of 26 points corresponding
to 74% of the points in the Energy and Atmosphere category. Another outcome of the analysis is
that more points are obtained in “EA5—Measurement and verification” in buildings with platinum
certification, compared to fewer points in gold and silver-certified buildings. Given the fact that they
have to obtain a larger number of points, projects seeking platinum certification need to focus on
discrepancies between actual and intended energy consumption.

3.2.2. PMPs between Certification Levels

In order to quantify the differences between certification levels, the silver, gold, and platinum
certifications were represented by an approach similar to the approach Ma and Cheng [9] used in their
study. In this approach, 1 represents silver, 2 gold, and 3 platinum certification. A linear regression
line is defined to find the slope of PMP and certification levels, shown in Equation (2):

PMP = L × Slope + e (2)

where PMP is the percent of maximum points achieved, L denotes the certification levels, and e is
the error term. The slopes of the six Energy and Atmosphere credits are shown in Figure 2. As an
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 9 of 20

example, the percent maximum point (PMP) of “EA2—On-site renewable energy” for silver, gold and
Buildings 2018, 8, x 9 of 20
platinum-certified
Buildings 2018, 8, x buildings was 9%, 26%, and 80%, respectively (Figure 3). According to regression 9 of 20
analysis
having the results, thisslope
steepest creditofexhibited the
0.35 of all highest
credits. Indifferences
other words, between certification
this credit levels,at
was exploited having
platinumthe
having the
steepest steepest
slope of 0.35slope
of allofcredits.
0.35 ofInallother
credits. In other
words, this words,was
credit thisexploited
credit was at exploited
platinum at platinum
level rather
level rather than lower levels, resulting in a steeper than in other credits. The flattest slope was
level lower
than rather levels,
than lower levels,
resulting in aresulting in a steeper
steepermanagement”
than than
in otheras in other
credits. The credits.
flattest The flattest
slope was slope was
attained in
attained in “EA4—Enhanced refrigerant 0.04. This value confirms the findings in the
attained in
“EA4—Enhanced “EA4—Enhanced
refrigerant refrigerant
management” management”
as 0.04. as 0.04. This value
This valuepercentages confirms
confirms theregardless the
findings in findings in the
previous section that this credit received close achievement ofthe previous
certification
previous
section thatsection
this that received
credit this credit received
close close achievement
achievement percentages percentages
regardless ofregardless of levels.
certification certification
levels.
levels.

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100%
80% 80% 80%
80% 80% 80%
EA2
EA1

EA3
60% EA2 60% 60%
EA1

EA3
60% 60% 60%
PMP

PMP
PMP
40% 40% 40%
PMP

PMP
PMP

40% 40% 40%

20% 20% 20%
20% 20% 20%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100%
80% 80% 80%
80% 80% 80%

EA6
EA4

EA5

60% 60% 60%

EA6
EA4

EA5

60% 60% 60%

PMP

PMP

40% 40% PMP 40%

PMP

PMP

PMP
40% 40% 40%
20% 20% 20%
20% 20% 20%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Regression
Regression analysis
analysis plots
plots for
for EA1
EA1 to
to EA6.
EA6.
Figure 2. Regression analysis plots for EA1 to EA6.
100%
100%
80% EAc1 EAc2 EAc3 EAc4 EAc5 EAc6
80% EAc1 EAc2 EAc3 EAc4 EAc5 EAc6
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0% Privately held Publicly traded Educational Government
Privately held Publicly traded Educational Government Investors Others
corporations corporations institutions agencies Investors Others
corporations corporations institutions agencies
EAc1 51% 51% 50% 57% 67% 51%
EAc1 51% 51% 50% 57% 67% 51%
EAc2 20% 22% 14% 23% 45% 24%
EAc2 20% 22% 14% 23% 45% 24%
EAc3 51% 51% 50% 57% 67% 51%
EAc3 51% 51% 50% 57% 67% 51%
EAc4 48% 55% 58% 54% 30% 60%
EAc4 48% 55% 58% 54% 30% 60%
EAc5 39% 42% 33% 32% 28% 34%
EAc5 39% 42% 33% 32% 28% 34%
EAc6 54% 61% 47% 40% 70% 54%
EAc6 54% 61% 47% 40% 70% 54%
Figure 3. Percent maximum points (PMP) based on building ownership.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Percent
Percent maximum
maximum points
points (PMP)
(PMP) based
based on
on building
building ownership.
ownership.
3.3. PMP by Building Ownership
3.3. PMP by Building Ownership
3.3. PMP by Building Ownership
Sectors with a growing number of certified buildings include education, government,
Sectors with a growing number of certified buildings include education, government,
Sectorsoffice,
industrial, with ahealthcare,
growing number of certified
hospitality, buildings
and retail include
[26]. In education,
this section, government,
the building industrial,
inventory was
industrial, office, healthcare, hospitality, and retail [26]. In this section, the building inventory was
office,
analyzedhealthcare,
by lookinghospitality, and retail
into differences [26]. by
in PMPs In this section,
building the building
ownership. Tableinventory was
5 illustrates theanalyzed
number
analyzed by looking into differences in PMPs by building ownership. Table 5 illustrates the number
by looking into differences
of LEED-certified buildings byin building
PMPs byownership,
building ownership.
based on the Table 5 illustrates
classification in the the
USGBCnumber of
project
of LEED-certified buildings by building ownership, based on the classification in the USGBC project
database. Corporate owners are privately held or publicly traded. Educational institutions represent
database. Corporate owners are privately held or publicly traded. Educational institutions represent
both public and private facilities including colleges, k12 schools, and universities. Government
both public and private facilities including colleges, k12 schools, and universities. Government
buildings involve all buildings owned by federal, state, and local (city and county) governments.
buildings involve all buildings owned by federal, state, and local (city and county) governments.
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 10 of 20

LEED-certified buildings by building ownership, based on the classification in the USGBC project
database. Corporate owners are privately held or publicly traded. Educational institutions represent
both public and private facilities including colleges, k12 schools, and universities. Government
buildings involve all buildings owned by federal, state, and local (city and county) governments.
Investors consist of banks, individuals, and both publicly traded and non-traded real estate investment
trusts. The projects which do not fit in any of these classes are grouped as others.

Table 5. Certification level by building ownership.

Certification Level
Building Ownership Total
Silver Gold Platinum
Privately held corporations 156 111 19 286
Publicly traded corporations 64 51 11 126
Educational institutions 156 148 27 331
Government agencies 248 200 37 485
Investors 40 47 12 99
Others 83 67 23 173
Total 747 624 129 1500

PMP values based on building ownership defined in USGBC’s database are illustrated in Figure 3
for each credit in the Energy and Atmosphere category. There are six credits in the Energy and
Atmosphere category of LEED-NC 2009 and six different building owner types.
Several researchers conducted statistical analysis to compare the achievements in credits in
the assessment of LEED-certified buildings. Kim and Cheung [12] analyzed 43 LEED-NC-certified
buildings using ANOVA to test if there were statistical differences in the mean points obtained in
different credits. They also conducted Tukey’s post hoc test to analyze the differences in pairwise
comparisons. Lee and Guerin [27] compared the credits in the Indoor Environmental Quality category
relative to five different office types with uneven sample sizes. Choi et al. [28] used ANOVA to
investigate the economic impacts that two LEED-certified public transportation access facilities have
on the appraised values of land parcels. In our study, since the distribution of existing data does not
satisfy the requirements of parametric tests, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess differences
in PMP values relative to building ownership. The Kruskal–Wallis test is a non-parametric test of
one-way analysis of variance on ranks, which is a procedure that makes minimal assumptions about
the underlying distribution of the data. The null hypothesis was that the means of PMP values do not
significantly differ from each other between owner types. The results obtained using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) indicated that PMP values differed between different building
ownerships for all credits, having asymptotic significance values less than 0.05 (Table 6). The results
indicate that the means of the achieved values are statistically different between building owners in
only in the “EA5—Measurement and verification” credit.
The Kruskal–Wallis test was followed by Bonferroni’s Mann–Whitney post-hoc test to compare
the mean points in pairs of buildings with different ownership. This is a non-parametric test for
comparing two independent groups and if the Bonferroni result is lower than the selected significance
value, it can be assumed that the means of the groups are significantly different than the others.
The results are tabulated and statistically significant differences are bolded in Table 7. It can be seen
that some pairwise differences of the mean points obtained by buildings with different ownership are
statistically significant at α = 0.10. For example, for “EA2—On-site renewable energy”, PMP values
earned by buildings owned by privately held corporations significantly differ from buildings owned by
educational institutions and investors with values 0.0747 and 0.0000, respectively (Table 7). This result
can be verified by PMP values shown in Figure 3, where the PMP value is 20% for privately held
corporations, while PMP values for educational institutions and investors are 14% (lowest value) and
45% (highest value).
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 11 of 20

Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis test statistics of Energy and Atmosphere credits for building ownership.

Credits in the Energy and Atmosphere Category

Statistics
EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6
H-statistics 35.525 37.057 23.276 30.636 12.529 45.235
degree of freedom 5 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. 0 0 0 0 0.028 0

Table 7. Post-hoc test Bonferroni Mann–Whitney U test results.

p-Values at 10% Significance

Type of Ownership
EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6
Publicly traded corporations 0.9079 0.8531 0.0059 0.2002 0.5172 0.1930
Educational institutions 0.8865 0.0747 0.0067 0.0122 0.0763 0.0682
Privately held
Government agencies 0.0014 0.1210 0.2095 0.1008 0.0231 0.0001
corporations
Investors 0.0000 0.0000 0.0569 0.0024 0.0183 0.0071
Others 0.9507 0.4025 0.6613 0.0112 0.1750 0.9276
Educational institutions 0.8647 0.1213 0.4444 0.5319 0.0414 0.0064
Publicly traded Government agencies 0.0304 0.3553 0.0429 0.8821 0.0161 0.0000
corporations Investors 0.0003 0.0005 0.0001 0.0003 0.0100 0.1818
Others 0.9892 0.6245 0.0296 0.3558 0.0874 0.2059
Government agencies 0.0003 0.0002 0.0796 0.2609 0.7249 0.0531
Educational institutions Investors 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.2448 0.0001
Others 0.8751 0.0153 0.0586 0.6485 0.8971 0.1401
Investors 0.0031 0.0002 0.0040 0.0000 0.3251 0.0000
Government agencies
Others 0.0130 0.7222 0.5628 0.1664 0.6728 0.0017
Investors Others 0.0002 0.0007 0.0363 0.0000 0.2461 0.0101

4. Discussion of the Findings

The findings of this study are discussed in this section by category (EA1 to EA6), always in the
light of the literature relevant to the issues discussed. In other words, the statements about the reasons
and/or impacts of the findings are not based on speculation, but on a thorough discussion that draws
extensively from past research.
EA1—Optimize Energy Performance
In LEED-NC 2009, the EA1 credit references the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standard. To reduce
environmental and economic impacts, the EA1 credit aims to achieve high levels of energy performance
beyond the prerequisite mentioned in the ASHRAE standard. As seen in Table 1, EA1 consists of
minimum energy cost savings, each of which deserves different points. It has the maximum achievable
points of 19 for all contributions in the Energy and Atmosphere category in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore,
it is important for LEED managers to focus on this credit for earning higher points. There are several
strategies adopted by project owners and developers to earn points. For example:

• Cedar Rapids Public Library in Iowa targeted platinum certification after being damaged by a
major flood. For this purpose, energy and cost-saving features were integrated into the building
and roof design [29]. Setting the Iowa Energy Code standards as a baseline, it was aimed to exceed
the baseline by 55%. This was achieved by several strategies such as strategic location of windows,
solar light tubes, exterior sunscreens, and use of high-efficiency T5 HE florescent bulbs [22]. Also,
storm water on site was effectively managed. As a result, the maximum achievable 19 points were
earned, which contributed a great deal to obtaining platinum certification.
• University of Arkansas at Little Rock constructed a new residential student housing with
sustainable attributes. Highly efficient HVAC and lighting systems were used to reduce the
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 12 of 20

consumption of energy by 32% [30]. This implementation provided cost savings through energy
efficiency and brought 10 points to the project, which at the end was awarded a gold certificate.
• The Sarasota National Guard Armory in Florida earned 14 points out of 19 by implementing
a combination of highly efficient lighting and HVAC system designs [31]. In this project,
LED fixtures were selected for all internal and external lighting. The control of lighting was
further enhanced by an advanced automation system. The building received silver certification.
Further suggestions for energy efficiency include improving equipment efficiency, such as
increased duct size leading to reduced fan power requirements, variable frequency drives for motors,
condensing stack boilers, and sophisticated controls [21]. Projects aiming to achieve higher energy
efficiency can benefit not only from the financial and environmental implications, but also can earn
more points in this credit. According to Table 4, all platinum-certified projects earned points in EA1
with 89 of 129 platinum-certified projects earning the maximum 19 points. However, the findings
indicate that there are a few buildings that received zero points in EA1 (14 buildings with silver
certification, and one building with gold certification). In such cases, the projects tend to compensate
with points earned in other credits.
Earning higher points in this category mostly depends on targeted energy efficiency in the
project. Therefore, it would be useful for project owners, managers, and LEED consultants to calculate
the costs and benefits of implementing different alternatives, and then make a decision about the
implementation that promote sustainability goals in the most cost effective way. Figure 3 shows
the achieved percentages of the maximum points in each credit categorized by building ownership.
Projects owned by investors and government agencies attain higher percentages than projects owned
by other types of owners (Figure 3). The Bonferroni post-hoc test results presented in Table 1 show that
the differences are consistently and statistically significant at α = 0.10. This finding can be the result of
investors and government agencies generally occupying the constructed facilities themselves rather
than immediately selling or renting, and expecting economic benefits in the long run. Buildings under
the other types of ownership display achievement rates that are quite similar to each other, that fall
around 51%, still not a low performance as it corresponds to cost savings in energy not less than 30%.
EA2—On-Site Renewable Energy
Energy consumption creates one of the most significant environmental impacts during a building’s
life cycle [32]. Use of renewable energy is an option to overcome the adverse impacts. This credit’s
objective is to promote the use of energy sources that are not depleted and to avoid the use of sources
such as fossil fuels that can be depleted. The LEED system encourages the implementation of strategies
that address on-site renewable energy policies that reduce the environmental and economic impacts
related to the use of energy generated by fossil fuels. As seen in Table 1, the maximum number of
points that a building can achieve is seven. EA2 specifies the percentage of on-site renewable energy for
each point threshold. Several technologies and strategies can be used such as solar, wind, geothermal,
low-impact hydro, biomass, and bio-gas [33]. Using on-site renewable energy in a project that aims
to achieve LEED certification enhances the project’s green image and decreases the consumption
of grid-purchased electricity [24]. Different cases exist where efforts were spent to produce on-site
renewable energy with varying degrees of success. For example:
• The design of Project Vida Community Wellness Center, a platinum-certified building, included a
photovoltaic array to produce approximately 40% of the energy necessary to operate the building
and earned the maximum seven points in this credit [34].
• The SUNY-ESF College of Environmental Science & Forestry Gateway Center, another LEED
platinum building also received the maximum seven points by designing a combined heat and
power plant to produce 60% of campus heating needs and 20% of its electricity requirements
using natural gas cogeneration, biomass, photovoltaic, and solar thermal systems [35].
• The Bend Broadband Vault project in Oregon, a gold-certified building, installed photovoltaic
arrays and all power consumed that was not produced by the photovoltaic system was offset
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 13 of 20

by renewable energy purchased through the Pacific Blue Sky Renewable Energy Program [36].
The implementation brought one point.
• Table 4 shows that out of the 129 platinum-certified buildings, only 8% (10 buildings) received
zero, while 67% (86 buildings) scored the maximum seven points. Out of 617 gold-certified
buildings, 66% (404 buildings) received zero, while 20% (121 buildings) scored the maximum
seven points. If one considers the 747 silver-certified buildings, as many as 86% (640 buildings)
received zero and only as few as 5% (39 buildings) earned the maximum seven points. These
values show that buildings aiming at higher certification take better advantage of renewable
energy sources.

The total investment in renewable energy is reported as $54.2 billion in 2013 in the US [37].
Although the US takes place in the list of top countries for total investment of installed renewable
electric capacity, the “EA2—On-site renewable energy” credit is underutilized in LEED-certified
buildings. Table 3 shows that the buildings that received zero points in EA2 correspond to 71% of
the buildings in the analyzed set, indicating that renewable energy is not a credit that is vigorously
pursued by owners, designers, and contractors probably because providers of on-site renewable energy
are rare and because acquiring these new technologies is cumbersome and expensive. One of the
main reasons for not using renewable energy systems more extensively is that investments require
substantial implementation costs followed by a long period of recovering the invested capital through
savings in utilities bills [25]. According to Karystas and Choropanitis [38], barriers against renewable
energy systems can be classified as financial, technical, regulatory, and market related issues, such as
lack of qualified personnel to install and promote the systems, limited space for installation and
inadequate or unclear financing options.
Active solar energy methods (converting solar energy for heating and cooling), passive solar
energy methods that take better advantage of local climate conditions (design of building, windows,
walls and floors to keep heat in the winter and reject heat in the summer), and the use of wind and
geothermal energy can contribute to lowering energy consumption costs [39]. However, economic and
non-economic barriers such as high initial costs, low cost effectiveness, high technical risks, high market
risks, and lack of specialized knowledge negatively affect the adoption of these systems [25,40,41].
Figure 3 shows the percentage of the maximum seven points achieved in EA2, categorized with
respect to type of ownership. The highest percentage is recorded for investors. The Bonferroni
post-hoc test confirms that the differences between investors and other types of owners are statistically
significant. Figure 3 also shows that educational institutions underperform in this credit, achieving
only 14% of the maximum points. It should also be noted that the maximum achievable point in this
credit is lowered to three in LEED v4, from 7 in LEED-NC 2009, probably as a response to the generally
low percentages observed in Figure 3.
EA3—Enhanced Commissioning
Commissioning is a verification process that a building undergoes to make sure that the design
objectives and the owner’s requirements are in agreement. LEED-NC 20090 s intention is that the
commissioning process be initiated early in the design phase and that additional activities be executed
after the systems’ performance verification is completed. LEED v4 expands on this intent by further
supporting the design, construction, and eventual operation of a building such that the owner’s
project requirements for energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability are met. Both of
these explanations suggest that the project’s energy, water, and indoor air quality systems and the
exterior envelope assemblies and systems are designed, installed, and calibrated to perform according
to the owner’s requirements, basis of design, and construction documents [42]. The operation of
key systems in the building is checked systematically to close the gap between the design team and
subcontractors. An independent commissioning agency is required for better objectivity. The scope of
the commissioning process involves verification of heating, cooling, refrigeration, ventilation systems
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 14 of 20

and controls, lighting and day-lighting controls, domestic hot water systems, and renewable energy
systems [43].
The maximum achievable point in EA3 is two points in LEED-NC 2009, but is higher (between
two and six points) for new construction in LEED v4. According to the information in Table 4,
41% of the buildings received zero points in all certification levels combined. This indicates that
even though all buildings satisfy the fundamental commissioning prerequisite, not too many seek
enhanced commissioning.
The commissioning of systems in buildings depends on the extent and complexity of the systems
used in the building [44]. For example:

• Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 21at Avenue received silver certification and earned two out
of the six points in this credit. The systems commissioned in the building consisted of an air
cooled chiller, chilled water pumps, water handling units, energy recovery units, a chiller with
an integral pumping package, air conditioning units in a computer room, exhaust/supply fans,
and a water heater [45].
• The Bendbroadband Vault project is a data center building project in Oregon, which received
gold certification. The project owner aimed to incorporate the most energy-efficient HVAC
system possible due to heavy energy consumption in data centers. Complexities surrounding
the mechanical and electrical systems were critical. However, challenging design strategies,
such as integration of various control technologies, were implemented in early stages by the
commissioning agent and the project received two points in this credit [36].
• Commissioning in the Largo Community Center in Florida, which is a platinum-certified building
involved efficient mechanical, plumbing, and fire safety designs [45].

Fundamental commissioning is a prerequisite and is mandatory for LEED certification.

“EA3—Enhanced commissioning” contributes additionally to the energy performance of the building.
The possible benefits of enhanced commissioning include improved building system control
and performance, improved efficiency and maintainability, early detection of potential problems,
and improved occupant comfort and productivity [44,46]. On the other hand, commissioning is a costly
process [47]. Owners typically select commissioning agents based on their fee, their qualifications,
and their experience [20]. According to Figure 3, publicly traded corporations and educational
institutions recorded the highest PMP compared to other owners.
Several researchers point out that the perception of additional costs and the lack of experience
of project owners and contractors affect the use of commissioning services [13,25,48,49]. In addition,
inadequacy in establishing and distributing a commissioning plan to project participants, and
shortcomings in integrating a commissioning plan into the project schedule also constitute barriers
to the implementation of this credit [50]. Continuing the trend in EA1 and EA2, buildings owned
by investors seemed to achieve significantly higher points in EA3 also. The results of Bonferroni’s
post-hoc test in Table 7 confirms this finding, which indicates that investors are more informed about
commissioning services than other types of owners.
EA4—Enhanced Refrigerant Management
This credit accounts for two points. It intends to reduce ozone depletion, and to support
early compliance with the Montreal Protocol while minimizing direct contributions to climate
change. The credit basically aims at designing and operating without mechanical cooling and
refrigeration systems [33]. If use of a mechanical system is essential, it suggests utilizing heating,
ventilation, air conditinioing, and refrigerating (HVAC&R) systems for the refrigeration cycle, selecting
equipment with reduced refrigerant charge and increased equipment life, maintaining equipment
to prevent leakage of refrigerant to the atmosphere, and using fire suppression systems that do not
contain Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) or halons. A prerequisite is also defined for fundamental
refrigerant management in both versions of LEED.
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 15 of 20

According to the information presented in Table 4, buildings achieved 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 points
on average in silver, gold and platinum-certified buildings, respectively. These values correspond
to 51%, 55%, and 59% of the maximum two points at each level, respectively. Compliance with this
credit requires either avoiding refrigerants altogether or using HVAC systems that have low impact
on ozone depletion and global warming. Despite the best of intentions, attaining points in this credit
can be challenging, since higher efficiency equipment systems generally use larger heat exchangers
and require larger refrigerant charges [51]. For example, the University of Texas at Austin decided
to eliminate all CFC refrigerants in chiller systems and started a phase-out plan to convert from
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) to Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-134a (HFC-134a) refrigerant. Also a
refrigerant leakage detection and management process was launched to ensure that refrigerant leakage
to the atmosphere is kept to a minimum [52]. Even though the use of complex formulas can act as a
barrier to less experienced consultants [11], it is not difficult to achieve points if manufacturers provide
compliant equipment [21]. According to Tables 3 and 7, investor-owned buildings perform significantly
better in EA4, again indicating that investors are more informed about alternative refrigerants than
other building owners.
EA5—Measurement and Verification
This credit intends to provide ongoing accountability for building energy consumption over time.
The difference between the intended and actual energy consumption should be tracked to evaluate the
energy efficiency of the building. The accurate quantification of energy use is measured by installing
metering equipment [33]. According to LEED-NC 2009, the measurement and verification period
should cover at least one year of post-construction occupancy. This credit was revamped in LEED v4
and was renamed “advanced energy metering” [53].
The maximum contribution of this credit is three points (Table 1). According to Table 4, 0.8, 1.1
and 2.0 points were achieved on average in silver, gold and platinum-certified buildings, respectively.
The number of projects with zero points in all three certification levels add up to 830 corresponding to
56% of the whole building inventory. Only 441 buildings (30%) earned the full three points. Such a
finding indicates that in general, this credit is either underperformed or most of the time not performed
at all. The cost of advanced meters and the cost of hiring consultants for the measurement and
verification process can be the reasons why owners do not fully take advantage of this credit [54].
In order to earn points, a measurement and verification plan should be introduced to monitor the
end uses in the building. Any discrepancies between actual energy use and the original model should
be detected. For example:

• It was found in a police station that was constructed on the campus of the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst that actual electricity use in the first year of occupancy was 70% more
than modeled. After identifying HVAC/control issues, the contractor made corrections [54]. It is
argued in this case that if full measurement and verification had been performed, the discrepancy
and its causes might have been detected earlier.
• In another project at the University of Texas at Austin, building site metering and generation
source metering were made available to establish a metric for cooling and combined heat and
power systems [52]. The aim was to quantify and verify the performance of these systems.
For example, each building’s chilled water consumption for cooling purposes was digitally
metered. Similarly, steam and electricity consumption were also metered for heat and power
facilities. These measures were collected and reported monthly to determine total thermal
efficiency and electrical generation heat rate to compare actual energy use and the original model.

Table 7 indicates that, the points obtained by publicly traded corporation-owned buildings are
significantly different from the points obtained by buildings with different ownership. Publicly traded
corporation-owned buildings scored higher points in general, probably because they need to be
transparent vis-à-vis their shareholders by putting in place measurement and reporting routines.
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 16 of 20

EA6—Green Power
This credit aims to encourage the development and use of grid-source, renewable energy
technologies on a net zero pollution basis. It requires engagement in at least a two-year renewable
energy contract to provide at least 35% of the building’s electricity from renewable sources, as defined
by the Center for Resource Solutions’ Green-e Energy product certification requirements [33].
It corresponds to two points. The intent has been described similarly in LEED-NC 2009 and in
LEED v4, but the term of the energy contract has been increased to five years in LEED v4 with the
provision of at least 50% (earns one point) or 100% (earns two points) of the project’s energy from
green power, carbon offsets, or renewable energy certificates. The newer version increases support for
growth in clean energy.
According to the information presented in Table 4, platinum-certified buildings achieved an
average of 1.6 out of the maximum points, whereas gold and silver-certified buildings attained only
1.0 and 0.9 points, respectively. Investors achieved a higher percentage than the other types of owners,
a PMP value of 70% (Figure 3). Governmental buildings significantly underperformed in this credit
and achieved lower points (Figure 3).
This credit encourages the use of off-site renewable energy, which can be administered by several
options such as enrolling in the Green Power Program, selecting a Green-e-certified power provider,
or purchasing Green-e-certified Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) [55]. A REC represents the
environmental attributes of the electricity produced from a renewable energy source and is a separate
commodity from the electricity [56]. Each of these options has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Enrolling in the Green Power Program is simple and monthly payment of bills is possible, but can
be expensive; month-to-month enrollment can often be an option [24]. Selecting a Green-e-certified
power provider may not be the most cost effective alternative and may not be regionally available,
which usually results in a lack of communication and support [24]. Purchasing a REC can be often
the least expensive option as it involves simple contracting procedures, but may not be regionally
available. Thus, the strategies addressing a solution can change depending on project characteristics
and location. Building energy and economic analysis software can be used to model a building’s base
line and to support the decision of selecting the applicable option.

5. Summary and Conclusions

Energy efficiency is essential in sustainable construction. LEED-NC 2009 awards the largest
portion of achievable points to the credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category. Energy and
Atmosphere is the major driver for implementing sustainable solutions most of the time. Since a
considerable amount of energy is used during the construction and occupation phases of a building
project, efforts to reduce energy consumption are valued in the certification process. LEED is the most
commonly used system for green building certification in the US. LEED-NC 2009 has been in effect
for more than five years. The inventory of LEED-NC 2009-certified buildings in this study consists
of 1500 buildings, far more than the number of buildings certified under the new version LEED v4.
The large number of buildings considered provided an in-depth understanding of the efforts to earn
points, and of how essential activities were practiced and rated in the industry. Pointing out challenges
and barriers to credit realization can provide suggestions for improvement to move forward in green
construction endeavors. Furthermore, discussing relevant examples can provide insights for future
practices in green construction.
The performance of the project in energy aspects heavily relies on the owner/developer’s
expectations of the building in addition to characteristics of the project. Concerns related to cost,
particularly the amount of upfront cost of recent technologies for energy efficiency is considered to be
the major issue in sustainable energy installations. The market and technical risks of the technologies
used also contribute to the limited implementations resulting in fewer earned points. Still, significant
savings in energy use in new buildings are possible using existing technologies [57]. The concerns also
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 17 of 20

extend to non-economic barriers such as lack of technical expertise for advanced tools and services
needed for improving energy efficiency.
Based on an analysis of 1500 LEED-NC 2009-certified project scorecards obtained from USGBC’s
project directory, the following findings are highlighted in this study:

• The percent of the maximum achievable points (PMP) in the Energy and Atmosphere credits
earned by the LEED-certified buildings considered in the study are ranked as “EA3—Enhanced
commissioning” (59%), “EA1—Optimize energy performance” (54%), “EA4—Enhanced
refrigerant management” (53%), “EA6—Green power” (50%), “EA5—Measurement and
verification” (34%), and “EA2—On-site renewable energy” (22%). Project teams that obtained
LEED-certification have often used commissioning services that are commonly available and
economical (EA3), whereas they stayed away from difficult-to-obtain and costly on-site renewable
energy (EA2) that may face technical, regulatory, and market related obstacles as well as limited
space for installation [38].
• The number of points earned in Energy and Atmosphere credits depends on whether silver,
gold, or platinum certification was sought. For example, linear regression analysis shows that
platinum-certified buildings take full advantage of “EA2—On-site renewable energy” whereas
silver-certified buildings practically ignore it. The credits that displayed the largest difference in
the average points attained in different certification levels was “EA2-On-site renewable energy”
credit followed by EA1, EA5, EA6, EA3, and EA4.
• The number of points that is earned in the Energy and Atmosphere credits is related to the
type building ownership. The Kruskal-Wallis test shows statistically significant differences in
the means. For example, investors mostly optimize energy efficiency (EA1), on-site renewable
energy (EA2), enhanced commissioning (EA3), and green power (EAC6), whereas publicly held
corporations perform better in measurement and verification (EA5).

The overall conclusions of the study include:

• Sustainable projects involve activities, implementations, and processes that might differ from
traditional projects. There are several barriers in the green building certification process.
Proceeding through the cumbersome certification process itself, using complex technological tools
and services for higher energy efficiency, and considering renewable energy alternatives require
adequate technical experience and background. These technical risks along with market-driven
risks can influence the design and implementation of sustainable practices. These tools and
services can also be seen as economic challenges, since they require additional and/or up-front
costs for project owners. All of these challenges and barriers should be discussed at the
design and construction stages, and appropriate strategies should be adopted to satisfy project
owners’ expectations.
• Even though renewable power source investments in the US are substantial, on-site renewable
energy solutions are not utilized extensively enough in LEED-NC 2009-certified projects in the
US. The use of renewable energy can be encouraged by providing substantial incentives.
• Cost savings generated by energy efficient systems is one of the primary drivers of sustainable
buildings. For this reason, all certification systems including LEED consider rating efforts that
encourage the efficient use of energy. “EA1—Optimizing energy efficiency” is the credit that
assesses these efforts in LEED-NC 2009. The analysis shows that the majority of the LEED-certified
buildings benefitted from this credit in different proportions. Regardless of the points earned
and certification levels (platinum, gold, silver), cost savings through energy efficiency have been
achieved in many of the projects, as well as lower adverse environmental impacts, hence fulfilling
the original intent of the “EA1—Optimizing energy efficiency” credit in LEED-certified projects.
• Alternative rating tools have been developed and used in different countries, providing guidelines
for sustainable construction to practitioners in those countries. According to Berardi [15], building
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 18 of 20

energy performance is the most important but the least achieved criterion in the currently available
sustainability rating systems when compared to criteria such as water efficiency or indoor air
quality. LEED is one of the most commonly used rating tools, not only in the US but also in other
regions of the world. As in most rating systems, energy issues constitute an important part of the
requirements of LEED (about a third of the total achievable points in LEED-NC 2009). Building
“green” is a growing trend in the construction sector and rating systems like LEED facilitate
this endeavor, but the findings indicate that optimizing energy performance (EA1) and using
non-depletable energy sources (EA2) are hard to achieve especially if the objective is a rather
modest silver certification.

This study aimed to analyze information about LEED-NC 2009 silver, gold and platinum-certified
buildings in the US. The findings indicate that not all Energy and Atmosphere credits receive equal
treatment by project owners. A larger percentage of the maximum achievable points is attained in
some credits depending on the level of certification and on the type of ownership. Practitioners
who recognize those differences are expected to be in a better position when making decisions in
sustainable building design and construction. The limitation of this study is that it analyzes only one
of the credit categories of LEED. For an overall understanding of sustainable construction practices,
achievements in other categories can and should be assessed too. Therefore, further studies may
involve the evaluation of credits in categories other than Energy and Atmosphere for an overall
understanding of sustainable construction practices. Also, this study covers buildings constructed
only in the US. Energy efficiency practices for LEED certification in countries other than the US can be
reviewed for a worldwide analysis.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change in 2014. Available online: https://www.ipcc.
ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2017).
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/
ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed on 8 February 2017).
3. Gonzalez, A.B.R.; Diaz, J.J.V.; Caamano, A.J.; Wilby, M.R. Towards a universal energy efficiency index for
buildings. Energy Build. 2011, 40, 980–987. [CrossRef]
4. Robichaud, L.B.; Anantatmula, V.S. Greening project management practices for sustainable construction.
J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 48–57. [CrossRef]
5. Anderson, M.K.; Bidgood, J.K.; Heady, E.J. Hidden risks of green building. Fla. Bar J. 2010, 84, 35–41.
6. USGBC. Benefits of Green Building. 2017. Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/projects (accessed on
13 September 2017).
7. Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key credit criteria among international green building
rating tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 209–220. [CrossRef]
8. Todd, J.A.; Pyke, C.; Tufts, R. Implications of trends in LEED usage: Rating system design and market
transformation. Build. Res. Inf. 2013, 41, 384–400. [CrossRef]
9. Ma, J.; Cheng, J.C.P. Data-driven study on the achievement of LEED credits using percentage of average
score and association rule analysis. Build. Environ. 2016, 98, 121–132. [CrossRef]
10. Cheng, J.C.P.; Ma, J. A study of the relationship between credits in the LEED-EB & OM green building rating
system. IACSIT Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2013, 5, 438–442.
11. Sullivan, K.T.; Oates, H.D. Analysis of Arizona’s LEED for new construction population’s credits. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1386–1393. [CrossRef]
12. Kim, J.; Cheung, S.L. Evaluation of green project rating system for new construction projects. In Proceedings
of the Integrating Sustainability Practices in the Construction Industry, Kansas City, MO, USA, 23–25
March 2011.
13. Da Silva, L.; Ruwanpura, J.Y. Review of the LEED points obtained by Canadian building projects. J. Arch. Eng.
2013, 5, 38–54. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 19 of 20

14. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Shou, W.; Chi, H.; Chong, H.Y.; Sutrisna, M. A comprehensive analysis of the credits
obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 370–379. [CrossRef]
15. Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings.
Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 411–424. [CrossRef]
16. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, X.; He, Q. Regional variations of credits obtained by LEED 2009
certified green buildings—A country level analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 20. [CrossRef]
17. Ma, J.; Cheng, J.C.P. Analysis of the related credits in LEED green building rating system using data mining
techniques. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering,
Orlando, FL, USA, 23–25 June 2014.
18. Kantora, M.; Saari, A. Commissioning for nearly zero-energy building projects. Constr. Innov. 2014, 14,
373–382.
19. Kuo, R.; Low, B. Comprehensive commissioning benefits for building owners during design, construction,
and beyond. In Proceedings of the Port Planning and Development, Seattle, WA, USA, 12–15 June 2016.
20. Elzarka, H.M. Best practices for procuring commission services. J. Manag. Eng. 2007, 25, 155–164. [CrossRef]
21. Langdon, D. Cost of Green Revisited. 2007. Available online: http://sustainability.ucr.edu/docs/leed-cost-
of-green.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2016).
22. Cedar Rapids Public Library. 2015. Available online: http://connect.crlibrary.org/tag/leed-platinum-library
(accessed on 15 August 2016).
23. Moeck, M.; Yoon, Y.J. Green buildings and potential electric light energy savings. J. Arch. Eng. 2004, 10,
143–159. [CrossRef]
24. 3Degrees. Demystifying the On-site/Off-site Renewable Energy Credit for LEED®. 2012. Available
online: https://www.usgbc-ncc.org/storage/documents/Presentations/SAC/2012-1-19_demystifying.pdf
(accessed on 21 June 2015).
25. Kashani, H.; Ashuri, B.; Shahandashti, S.M.; Lu, J. Investment valuation model for renewable energy systems
in buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141. [CrossRef]
26. USGBC. Green Building Facts. 2009. Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-facts
(accessed on 10 August 2015).
27. Lee, Y.S.; Guerin, D.A. Indoor environmental quality differences between office types in LEED-certified
buildings in the U.S. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 1104–1112. [CrossRef]
28. Choi, K.; Son, K.; Woods, P.; Park, Y.J. LEED public transportation accessibility and its economic implications.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1095–1102. [CrossRef]
29. OPN Architects. 2015. Available online: http://www.opnarchitects.com/work/cedar-rapids-public-library-
downtown/ (accessed on 9 March 2015).
30. USGBC. LEED BD + C: New Construction v3—LEED 2009. UALR West Hall. 2017. Available online:
http://www.usgbc.org/projects/ualr-west-hall (accessed on 15 August 2017).
31. USGBC. LEED BD + C: New Construction v3—LEED 2009. Sarasota National Guard Armory. 2017. Available
online: http://www.usgbc.org/projects/sarasota-national-guard-armory (accessed on 15 August 2017).
32. Komurlu, R.; Arditi, D.; Gurgun, A.P. Applicability of LEED’s energy and atmosphere category in three
developing countries. Energy Build. 2014, 84, 690–697. [CrossRef]
33. LEED-NC. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations; LEED: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
34. Builduncommon.com. Project Vida Community Center. 2015. Available online: http://builduncommon.
com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/VIDA-Case-Study_Final.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2016).
35. USGBC. LEED BD + C: New Construction v3—LEED 2009. SUNY-ESF Gateway Center. 2017.
Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/projects/suny-esf-gateway-center?view=overview (accessed on 1
August 2017).
36. USGBC. LEED BD + C: New Construction v3—LEED 2009. BendBroadband Vault. 2017. Available online:
http://www.usgbc.org/projects/bendbroadband-vault (accessed on 13 July 2017).
37. REN21. Renewables 2014 Global Status Report. 2014. Available online: http://www.ren21.net/portals/0/
documents/resources/gsr/2014/gsr2014_full%20report_low%20res.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2015).
38. Karytsas, S.; Choropanitis, I. Barriers against and actions towards renewable energy technologies diffusion:
A Principal Component Analysis for residential ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 252–271. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2018, 8, 29 20 of 20

39. Lipu, M.S.H.; Jamal, T.; Karim, T.F. An approach towards sustainable energy performance by green building:
A review of current features, benefits and barriers. Int. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2013, 2, 180–190. [CrossRef]
40. Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Garg, D.; Haleem, A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption:
Indian perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 762–776. [CrossRef]
41. Kim, K.; Lee, D.J.; Park, S.; Zhang, Y.; Sultanov, A. Measuring the efficiency of investment for renewable
energy in Korea using data envelopment analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 694–702. [CrossRef]
42. Enck, J. LEED 2012 Commissioning. Available online: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=
cache:XWVoNwJam7EJ:www.commissioning.org/downloads/2011/Enck_LEED_2012_Cx.ppt+&cd=3&
hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr (accessed on 14 August 2016).
43. LEEDuser, NC-2009 EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems. 2015. Available
online: http://www.leeduser.com/credit/nc-2009/eap (accessed on 13 August 2016).
44. Portland Energy Conservation INC. Establishing Commissioning Costs. 2002. Available online:
http://labs21.lbl.gov/DPM/Assets/PECI%20newconst%20commissioning%20costs.pdf (accessed on 14
April 2016).
45. Consulting Engineering Associates, Inc. LEED/Commissioning (Cx) Projects. 2015. Available online:
http://cea-engineers.com/leed.htm (accessed on 16 June 2016).
46. Sullivan, J.G. Decision Model for Public Sector Assessment of Sustainable Buildings in Florida. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2007.
47. D’Antonio, P.C. Costs and benefits of commissioning LEED-NCTM buildings. In Proceedings of the National
Conference on Building Commissioning, Chicago, IL, USA, 2–4 May 2007.
48. Mapp, C.; Noce, M.C.; Dunbar, B. The cost of LEED—An analysis of the construction costs of LEED and
Non-LEED banks. J. Sustain. Real Estate 2011, 3, 254–273.
49. Lohiya, G. Contractors and LEED credits: Towards sustainable construction. In Proceedings of the
Developing the Frontier of Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction, Fort Worth, TX, USA,
7–9 November 2012.
50. Szydlik, C. Identifying and Overcoming the Barriers to Sustainable Construction; Ph.D. Thesis, Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA, 2014.
51. Hsieh, C. Top Ten Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on LEED and HVAC. Available online:
http://www.trane.com/Commercial/Uploads/PDF/978/News-%20LEED%20&%20HVAC-%20Top%
20Ten%20FAQs.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2015).
52. Reid, R.; Thompson, R. The Utilities and Energy Management Department Carl J Eckhardt Heating and
Power Complex, Supporting the District and Energy Requirements of LEED0NC 2009, Demonstration of
M$V Requirements for EA5. 2013. Available online: https://utilities.utexas.edu/sustainability/leed/EAc5-
MeasurementandVerification-UTguidelines.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2016).
53. Kessler, H. Measurement and Verification Can Help Maintain Efficiency, Improve LEED Scores. 2013.
Available online: http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/article/Measurement-and-Verification-Can-Help-
Maintain-Efficiency-Improve-LEED-Scores-Facilities-Management-Green-Feature--14148 (accessed on 15
August 2016).
54. University of Massachusetts Amherst Measurement and Verification Guidelines and Template Plan.
2013. Available online: https://www.umass.edu/sustainability/sites/default/files/UMASS%20M%26V%
20Guide%20and%20Template%20Plan.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2016).
55. LEED. Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction; Updated V4; LEED: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
56. Renewable Choice Energy. Earning LEED Credits While Selling Back S-RECS. 2015. Available online:
https://www.slideshare.net/RenewableChoice/leed-s-rec-infosheet (accessed on 8 February 2018).
57. Harney, L.D.D. Reducing energy use in building sector: Measures, costs and examples. Energy Effic. 2009, 2,
139–163.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).