December 2024
Interview With Deb Shephard

Note from Editor

I have the pleasure of being part of a NESEA-funded business support group with Deb Sheppard.  Our cohort, nicknamed Seven Strong, comprises women-owned businesses with missions around sustainability and healthy/inclusive communities. Whenever we meet, Deb inspires me with Riverstone’s commitment to practical and measurable change.  Reading the morning paper, all of us are reminded of the consequences of our collective damage.  We can see the wages paid to our extractive economy, and we know the impact of continued consumption.  It makes us very sad, just before we hit “Add to Cart.”  Yet there are those who stand up to make a difference.  In this series of posts, our team is seeking out people, organizations, and communities that have put themselves out there as changemakers.  KF

Written by Aatman Modi

Introduction

To gain a deeper understanding of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and how it has evolved, we spoke with Deb Shepard, founder of Riverstone Sustainability, a consulting firm for LEED project management and sustainable building strategies. Deb shared her insights into the realities of working with LEED and Passive House, shedding light on their respective advantages and complexities.

Aatman Modi: LEED has been a dominant certification in large public projects, especially in higher education. What do you think has led to its widespread adoption?

Deb Shepard: Capital teams are comfortable with LEED because they know how it works. It’s well-established, and everyone knows what’s expected. The process is familiar—you know the steps, the documentation requirements, and how to navigate the reviews. That’s a big reason why LEED continues to be a go-to for capital teams, especially on these large projects. It’s a framework that touches on a lot of sustainability aspects, from energy to materials to occupant comfort, and that gives teams flexibility in deciding what’s most important for their project.

AM: But we’re seeing more interest in certifications like Passive House, which is known for its focus on energy efficiency. How does this shift look from your perspective?

DS: Absolutely. We’re definitely seeing a shift, particularly from sustainability teams who are pushing for stricter energy standards. Passive House really focuses on energy efficiency, and that’s attractive, especially in new construction. Dormitory projects, for example, are starting to explore Passive House more because it offers a level of energy savings that LEED doesn’t focus on as heavily. But there’s still some hesitation. For renovations, especially, it can be harder to justify Passive House, because you have to retrofit buildings to meet their standards, which can be quite challenging and expensive.

AM: You’ve mentioned before that there can be a gap between energy models and real-world performance in LEED projects. How does this issue manifest in your experience?

DS: You’re only as good as your inputs, right? When you’re working with energy models during the design phase, you’re making a lot of assumptions. And the reality is that those assumptions don’t always match what happens in the real world. Take dormitories, for instance—energy models might assume that the dorms are not occupied year-round. Historically, that hasn’t been the case. Dorms have typically been empty over the summer. But now, with universities using dorms for summer programs, the energy use changes significantly. Those changes can really throw off the energy performance you modeled, so you end up with a building that’s not performing the way you expected.

AM: Does LEED account for these performance gaps, particularly after the building is operational?

DS: That’s one of the big gaps with LEED. Once the building is certified, there’s no required follow-up other than reporting energy data for five years. You don’t have to go back and say, ‘Okay, now that the building’s operating, are we actually hitting the energy goals we set?’ That’s a real challenge because you can’t verify whether the sustainability objectives you modeled are being met in practice. LEED is very design-focused, but it doesn’t mandate post-occupancy evaluations. There is a pathway under EA credit Enhanced Commissioning, which supports this type of analysis via monitoring-based commissioning. We recommend this pathway on most projects as a best practice, but it is not required, per se. So, you miss out on that critical feedback loop that could help improve performance.

AM: LEED’s flexibility is often seen as one of its strengths. But how does that flexibility become a challenge when you’re aiming for ambitious energy targets?

DS: It’s definitely a balancing act. LEED gives you flexibility in terms of the sustainability goals you focus on, whether that’s energy, water, materials, or indoor air quality. But that same flexibility can make it harder to hit really ambitious energy performance targets. With Passive House, for example, you have to meet very strict energy standards. But with LEED, you’re balancing energy efficiency against other priorities like materials and daylighting. You have to make decisions based on what’s most important for the project, and sometimes that means sacrificing energy performance for other goals, and sometimes that means prioritizing other goals, rather than focusing only on energy performance.

AM: You’ve mentioned the administrative burden that comes with LEED certification. Can you elaborate on the challenges you’ve faced in that process?

DS: The biggest challenge with LEED is the amount of documentation you have to submit and keeping these expectations front-and-center with competing project commitments. You go through multiple rounds of reviews with LEED reviewers, and that can be really time-consuming. For example, you submit the documentation, and then sometimes you’re asked to clarify or provide additional information to meet a specific reviewer’s interpretation of a credit. It’s not always clear-cut, and that can lead to a lot of back-and-forth. Maintaining communications on large projects with multiple firms can be a challenge—especially on large projects with multiple teams involved. Ensuring that everyone is on the same page and that the documentation is consistent can be a real challenge.

AM: How does Passive House compare in terms of complexity, particularly from a technical standpoint?

DS: Passive House is definitely less of an administrative burden, but the challenge there is the technical side of things. Passive House requires a much higher level of precision, especially in areas like energy modeling and construction techniques. You really have to pay attention to the details—things like airtightness and minimizing thermal bridges, for example. There’s a steep learning curve for teams that haven’t worked with Passive House before. The upfront investment is higher because you have to meet these very specific energy performance standards, and that can be difficult for teams who are new to it. But it’s a necessary investment if you want to hit the kind of energy savings Passive House is designed for.

AM: Looking forward, how do you see LEED and Passive House evolving as we move toward global Net-Zero 2050 targets?

DS: LEED will continue to be a flexible framework that supports Net-Zero goals, but it doesn’t mandate them. That flexibility is helpful for teams that have to balance multiple sustainability objectives, but it also means that not every LEED project is pushing for the most aggressive carbon reduction targets. The recent changes to LEEDv4 energy performance targets will help in the interim, and forthcoming changes to LEEDv5 will broaden the scope of carbon reduction. Passive House, on the other hand, is much more focused on energy performance and is probably better aligned with future operational carbon reduction goals. As we move toward 2050, I think the conversation is going to shift more toward certifications that focus heavily on energy efficiency and carbon reduction. Passive House is gaining momentum, and I think we’ll see more projects adopting it as energy performance becomes a bigger priority.

Conclusion

Through her practical experience, Deb Shepard provides a picture of the strengths and challenges of LEED and Passive House certifications. LEED’s flexibility allows it to cater to a breadth of sustainability goals, making it the go-to certification for many capital teams. However, its lack of mandatory post-occupancy evaluations and the heavy documentation burden can present obstacles to verifying and maintaining energy performance. In contrast, Passive House offers a more rigid framework with a sharp focus on energy efficiency, but it requires a high level of technical precision and a steeper learning curve for teams. As the industry moves toward Net-Zero 2050, the growing demand for energy efficiency will likely drive more projects to consider stricter standards and more empirical targets. One final point to consider is that there are some synergies between LEED and Passive House (particularly around energy and occupant comfort), so teams may consider following both for some larger projects. It doesn’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.