...engagement of the design and construction teams and assigning appropriate responsibilities and risks will be even more acute under this new iteration of LEED,” says Gentilcore.

Vyas says the actual mechanism for how and when the metered or submetered data is to be provided is not established. In some jurisdictions, investor- or public-owned utilities also are not allowed to share metered data with anyone other than the current or potential owner of the property.

Horst says USGBC is planning to work with utilities to remove obstacles to reporting and invites those with concerns about the requirement to e-mail USGBC at leedinfo@usgbc.org. “We’re still developing the best and easiest ways to help owners do this,” says Horst. “This is a new requirement and there is a lot to work out over time.” Horst declines to say when addenda will be issued.

There is support for the requirement, both cautionary and full. “These changes will give credibility to the rating system,” says Gordon Holness, president of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. “As good as the rating system has been, it will quickly tarnish if buildings do not perform as expected.”

Greg Mella, a principal in the Washington, D.C., office of SmithGroup and a member of the American Institute of Architects’ committee on the environment, supports the reporting requirement, with qualifications. “The requirement need not be onerous since owners can simply provide copies of utility bills, and USGBC will waive this requirement for projects that are tied into a central plant where collecting this data can be difficult,” says Mella. But USGBC needs to better understand the requirement’s potential legal ramifications, he adds.

Mella also wants guidelines for overcoming potential legal challenges, which may include providing more exceptions to the rule. He is not too concerned about the risk of decertification, but he agrees with sources who maintain LEED 2009 will, in general, require reconsideration of existing contract models for engagement of design and construction teams.

“LEED requires owners, contractors, engineers and architects to certify certain strategies and/or products were incorporated into a project, to predict how a building will operate and to commit to honoring the claims made to USGBC during LEED documentation,” says Mella. “It is almost inconceivable to me to think that something as pervasive as LEED would not have a significant impact on contract models.”

The Building Owners and Managers Association also supports the requirement but has concerns about ensuring data access, potential building decertification, ongoing tax considerations and due process for participants. “It is a positive step...and we look forward to learning more details about the requirement,” says Henry Chamberlain, BOMA’s president.

BOMA also wants to know if existing meters will be sufficient to supply the performance data and in the format required. “If not, who will bear the costs of new meters?” asks Chamberlain. “BOMA members will almost certainly have other concerns, including how the performance data will be used and especially how the confidentiality of that information will be preserved.”

Historically, it has been “very difficult” to get building owners to provide performance data, says Horst. This was the case during a joint energy-performance study with the National Buildings Institute, which was released last year. The report found LEED buildings were performing 25% to 30% better than the national average or modeled baselines. But the study only looked at 121 buildings. USGBC wants to increase that number.

“We’ve all been talking about how important carbon is,” says Horst. The new requirement will “allow us to collectively say how LEED buildings are affecting climate,” he adds.