What's wrong with LEED

You want to know what's wrong with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program put forth by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC)? I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it. You - the professionals who design and implement the structured cabling and wireless systems that are the central nervous systems of the business that actually gets done within buildings - are not part of the consideration for LEED certification. That's wrong, and it's what is wrong with LEED.

Over the past few years we have reported about the possibility of structured cabling systems, and the broader technologies they support, getting some consideration in the LEED process. It is evident that the possibility will not become a reality. Despite ongoing dialogue between the USGBC and organizations such as BICSI and others over the course of years, USGBC has shown no signs of including technology networks or network infrastructure in its evaluation of buildings seeking LEED certification.

Many of you who are cabling- and network-design professionals undoubtedly have lived the frustration of being left out of the LEED conversation. Your architectural and engineering colleagues have made decisions about a building's heating and cooling systems, windows, concrete foundation, carpet - even bicycle racks - based in some part on the extent to which these choices would affect the quest for LEED certification. Meanwhile, your efforts to design the most-efficient technology infrastructure possible have been all fine and good. But they haven't contributed a single point toward LEED. I shudder to consider that this fact of life may be affecting the funding of technology systems in new-construction projects that are gung-ho about achieving LEED certification, and align their construction budgets accordingly.

Now that I've vented for a few paragraphs, this green conundrum appears to have a silver lining. Recently I had the opportunity to learn about the rationale behind the creation of the Sustainable Technology Environments Program (STEP). Spearheaded by InfoComm, STEP is also being supported by BICSI, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA). We've told you briefly about BICSI's and TIA's roles within STEP, including representation on the organization's board.

The primary reason for STEP being organized was ... well ... what I complained about earlier. Without a voice in the "green building" construction process, technology-based professions like yours have gone unrecognized for the extent to which your expertise helps a building achieve a certain level of sustainability.

STEP has a website, www.thestepfoundation.org, that no doubt will be fleshed out as the program develops further. Already on the site is a preliminary rating system, which you can check out here.

With a group like BICSI involved, I expect we'll see a comprehensive course of study developed for professionals who will implement the program. And with TIA, InfoComm and CompTIA also in leadership roles, I have to believe a set of clearly defined specifications will be coming as well.

Why the USGBC has chosen not to involve technology systems in its LEED program, I cannot say. It strikes me, though, that the components and systems that LEED considers are pretty much static once they are installed. Technology systems, on the other hand, are living, breathing, evolving ecosystems. (What, you don't think a technology system breathes? Next time you're in a telecom room, step behind the racks to the area of network-equipment exhaust. You tell me that's not the endless panting of a live, tired and overworked beast of burden.) Perhaps that fact has had something to do with the USGBC's inaction.

So while STEP will not be part of the USGBC's LEED, it will be - in my opinion - a bona fide program that quantifies how "green" a building's technology systems are. And there is no better group to administer it than those who have put the program together.