The USGBC "mandate" is not the real issue. The issue is that the reported energy use will be used in regulatory and contractual ways that have not been used yet.

I don't believe those stats posted above. There is no way that LEED buildings could command that much of a real premium ($38.86 vs $29.80). This may a case of CoStar comparing apples to oranges. As in comparing net rents (more common in non-LEED bldgs) with gross rents (used more commonly in LEED bldgs) - obviously, net rents tend to be lower than gross rents and thus would deliver that much of a perceived premium. Another component of that premium is also the fact that LEED building are more expensive; therefore, have to ask for higher rents. As for occupancy, a lot LEED buildings are built by government agencies as built-to-suits and thus have occupancies of "100%." CoStar (and USGBC) need to report their stats at least segregated by public and private work. I don't believe these stats would be as impressive for private work.

According to the USGBC, there will be no building decertification for failure of a certified building to perform in accordance with energy optimization modeling (i.e., the targeted credit level). Decertification is only possible (however unlikely) if the owner of a certified building refuses to share energy and water usage data in accordance with the MPR. The new MPR is all about collecting sufficient data to allow for meaningful measurement and verification of building designs and targeted credits (to inform future development of LEED and identify what is working and not working). The notion that a certified building risks decertification if it fails to perform sustainably or in accordance with the earlier achieved credits is a total straw man argument that needs to be discredited.

Michael,
You are indeed correct I was not trying to say that buildings would be decertified merely for failure to perform and the link to Chris Cheatham's website does an excellent job explaining the decertification issues and the MPR. However, the phantom of decertification still poses a valid concern when considering whether to certify a building. If a failure to report performance risks losing you certification (which it does) and you have a poorly performing building (where submitting the data will cause tenants to sue) you may seek to avoid certification which carries with it a high initial upfront cost and a the reporting obligation in lieu of simply building a "green" but uncertified building.

Rich,
I agree with the statement that under LEED v3 there is a risk of decertification of a certified building if the owner does not cooperate with the production of energy and water use data to the USGBC. I cannot agree with the second part of your argument, however, that submitting the energy data on a poorly performing building "will cause tenants to sue". The USGBC has been outspoken in its position that the data will be published only to the USGBC and will be used only for research purposes. Researchers need to study trends and patterns in underperforming buildings. It is not necessary in the research to identify by postal address each of the underlying sources of the energy data relied upon by the researcher. Accordingly, there is no basis for believing that publishing energy data to the USGBC pursuant to the new MPR will lead to tenant suits.

Also, there is a problem with the timing of the decisions you discuss above. The decision to seek certification is typically made during design. If postponed until during construction, it rarely lags to post substantial completion of the building. Meanwhile, the owner won't really know how efficiently her building is operating until there is a year's worth of data (during four seasons and with full occupancies) to evaluate. Accordingly, in most instances the decision to seek certification will far predate the knowledge of whether the building is performing efficiently.