Table 1 Summary of 12 peer-reviewed studies of energy use for LEED-certified commercial buildings

[17]

Turner & Frankel (NBI) (2008), Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings

121 bldgs representing 22% of all U.S. buildings certified before 2006 under NCv2

any year from 2004 thru 2007

All U.S. buildings as captured by CBECS 2003

Site EUI, LEED pts for EE; ES scores, design EUI, baseline EUI

compare median site EUI with gross site EUI for all CBECS 2003.

LEED buildings, on average, are saving 30–35% (site) energy consistent with design predictions

[18]

Scofield (2009), A re-examination of the NBI LEED Building Energy Consumption Study

Turner & Frankel data

any year in 2004–2007

constructed subsets of U.S. buildings from CBECS 2003 microdata

site EUI, source EUI

calculate gross EUI (equiv. to area-weighted mean EUI); construct appropriate comparison group

identified key flaws in Turner/Frankel analysis. LEED buildings save 10% site energy but no significant source energy

[19]

Newsham et al. (2009), Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but …

100 medium energy bldg subset of Turner & Frankel data

any year in 2004–2007

each bldg paired with a matched partner from CBECS 2003 sample data

site EUI

analysis paired each building with “nearest” building in CBECS 2003 public data

LEED saved 18–39% (site) energy relative to conventional counterpart

[20]

Scofield (2009), Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really …

35 office bldg subset of Turner & Frankel data

any year in 2004–2007

same pairing methodology used by Newsham et al.

site EUI, source EUI

replicated Newsham method with area-weighted averaging and source EUI

when area-weighting was used found no site or source energy savings for LEED buildings

[21]

Issa et al. (2011), Energy consumption in conventional, energy-retrofitted and green LEED Toronto schools

3 K-12 Schools in Toronto certified under NCv1

FY2009 data for LEED, 8 years for other bldgs

other Toronto schools; 10 conventional and 20 energy-retrofitted

natural gas, electricity, site EUI and energy cost

extensive use of regression analysis

LEED schools use significantly more electricity (37%) and significantly less NG (45%) than conventional schools.

[22]

Menassa et al. (2012), Energy consumption evaluation of U.S. Navy LEED certified buildings

11 certified Navy buildings of various types located in IL, VA, NC, or CA

Oct. 2008 thru Sept. 2009

similar (size, location, function), non-LEED Navy buildings. Also CBECS 2003

electric use (insufficient metering for district heat)

paired T-test of LEED with partnered baseline facility

majority of LEED bldgs used more electricity than the national averages (CBECS 2003)

[23]

Oates & Sullivan (2012), Post-occupancy energy consumption survey of Arizona’s LEED new construction population

25 bldgs representing 47% of all AZ buildings certified under NCv2.x before Sept. 2009

not clear; presume any year since cert.

CBECS 2003 gsf-weighted mean, national and climate zone subsets

site EUI, source EUI, LEED EE points

compared area-weighted mean siteEUI and sourceEUI with various CBECS subsets

medium energy LEED buildings used 13% less site and 1% less source EUI than national. LEED performed worse when compared to CBECS zone 5.

[24]

Scofield (2013), Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission for large New York City office buildings

21 certified office buildings identified in the 2012 NYC benchmarking disclosure

2011

1000 other NYC office buildings, same 2011 year data

site EUI, source EUI, ES scores

comparison of area-weighted mean EUI significance determined by t-test

no site or source energy savings by LEED

[25]

Agdas et al. (2015), Energy use assessment of educational buildings: toward a campus-wide sustainable energy policy

10 educational bldgs of various types representing 34% of certified buildings on UF main campus at Gainseville, FL

2013

14 other educational buildings on UF campus, same period

chilled water, steam, and electric energy, site EUI

unweighted and area-weighted means as well as medians

found no statistically significant differences between LEED and non-LEED

[26]

Chokor & Asmar (2016), A Novel Modeling Approach to Assess the Electricity Consumption of LEED-Certified Research Buildings Using Big Data Predictive Methods

5 certified research facilities on a university campus in climate zone 2B

7 years: 2008–2014

13 other research facilities on same campus

electric use for 7 years along with other paramters (bldg hours, weather, etc.)

developed regression models to predict electric use from other variables

The results show the differences between LEED and non-LEED residuals are not as large as anticipated.

[27]

Saldanha & O’Brien(2016), A study of energy use in New York City and LEED-certified buildings

91 certified offices and multifamily housing facilities identified in the 2015 NYC benchmarking disclosure

2014

data from other buildings in same dataset (1000 office and 7400 MFH)

site EUI and source EUI

compared area-weighted mean site and source EUI

LEED bldgs used more source energy than other bldgs, 7% for offices and 30% for MFH

[28]

Scofield & Doanes (2018), Energy performance of LEED-certified buildings from 2015 Chicago benchmarking data

112 certified offices, K-12 Schools, and MFH identified in the 2016 Chicago benchmarking disclosure

2015

data from other buildings in same dataset (226 office, 375 school, and 310 MFH)

site EUI, source EUI, electric, nat. gas

area-weighted mean EUI

LEED-certified buildings show 10% reduction in site EUI but no reduction in source EUI