Raising the Floor: Why Building Performance Standards Aren't a Design Failure
An industry piece published this month made a claim I've been chewing on. The argument: for years, building performance standards were treated as a design-community conversation, architects, energy modelers, policy advocates, working from the assumption that if the design community got it right, compliance would take care of itself. Now that BPS enforcement is arriving with real deadlines and real penalties, that assumption is being tested, and building owners are the ones absorbing the consequences.
I don't think that's the right read. And I think the actual story here is more interesting than "the design community left a gap."
Every project meets the standard it was designed under
Buildings don't underperform because architects were unwilling to push further. In over a decade working across sustainability programs at the American Institute of Architects, I never met an architect who didn't want to push a project's performance further. What I saw instead were two much more common, much less discussed reasons a project lands at "meets code" instead of "exceeds it":
Improved performance beyond the required level wasn't a priority for the client at the time decisions were being made.
Budget constraints or other outside pressures forced high-performing features out of the design before construction, the reality of value engineering.
Neither of those is a design failure. Both are decisions made above the design team, often well before a building ever reaches occupancy.
Facilities teams have a real, legitimate constraint
The article does raise a point worth taking seriously: facilities managers working within a building that's already in a compliance window have limited levers. You can't retrofit a building's fundamental envelope or system architecture overnight, and operational tweaks can only move performance so far. That's a real constraint, not an excuse.
But the conclusion that follows shouldn't be that compliance now falls on facilities teams to solve alone, any more than it should have fallen on architects alone before them.
Ceiling programs vs. floor programs
Here's the distinction I think gets lost in conversations like this.
Programs like the 2030 Commitment, LEED, and the Living Building Challenge raise the ceiling. They prove what's achievable on the projects that opt in, and they've meaningfully pushed the industry's sense of what's possible. That's real, valuable work.
But new construction and major renovation, the work these programs primarily touch, make up only about 2% of the U.S. building stock in any given year, according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The other 98% already exists. Voluntary, project-by-project programs were never structurally built to reach it.
Building Performance Standards do something different. They raise the floor. Every building over a jurisdiction's square footage threshold is covered, regardless of whether the owner ever opted into a voluntary framework. Seattle's BEPS, for example, is projected to cut existing building emissions 27% by 2050, the equivalent of taking roughly 72,000 cars off the road every year. That's not a claim about any single building performing better than another. It's a claim about how many buildings get touched, and the other 98% is where the scale of impact lives.
This is a team problem, not a solo one
None of this is something architects solve alone, or owners solve alone, or facilities teams solve alone. It's a team problem that spans design through operations. Architects and engineers partnering with owners and facilities managers, from the earliest planning conversations through the life of the building, is what actually closes the gap between what a handful of buildings have proven possible and what becomes probable for every building on the list.
That's the kind of progress this industry has been trying to reach for a long time. BPS enforcement isn't a verdict on who fell short. It's the mechanism that finally makes it everyone's work.
Sources
Melissa Morancy is a strategic climate and building decarbonization consultant and founder of Lighthouse Advisory Solutions.
Your Next Great Hire Might Be Fractional
It All Begins Here
Fractional staffing seems to be all the rage these days, but what exactly is it? “Fractional staffing” refers to an arrangement where individuals work part-time for multiple organizations, offering specialized skills or management services. Given the current uncertainty in the world, fractional staffing can provide opportunities for businesses and nonprofits to grow without incurring extensive risk.
One of the biggest benefits of fractional staffing is the cost savings it offers to the company. It enables organizations to access skilled professionals without incurring the full-time salary or benefits costs. This use of resources is ideal for short-term projects, seasonal surges, or temporary capacity boosts—essentially, bringing in extra hands to kick off a project or help during heavy workloads.
It’s also a great solution when you can’t find that “unicorn” employee who has expertise in multiple areas. Rather than waiting to find a perfect hire, companies can find a few focused experts to fill specific needs. This creates a starting point for those looking to scale up in the future and have sufficient growth to justify a full-time role later. Nonprofit organizations have been using fractional staffing as “an efficient, affordable way to confront challenges threatening their existence or limiting growth.” It’s also a way for smaller or developing companies to grow and compete more effectively, and for emerging organizations to stay competitive with larger, more established players.
Organizations that require strategic support, like a CSO, CFO, or COO, but can’t afford a full-time executive, can benefit significantly from fractional leadership. These professionals bring deep expertise in areas such as fundraising, sustainability, finance, and operations, giving smaller organizations a competitive edge that others may not achieve without the same level of creativity.
Fractional roles can also be a trial run for both the employer and the employee. It’s a chance to see whether the partnership is a good cultural and operational fit. If the relationship works well and the workload expands, it can naturally evolve into a full-time position.
So, is this as beneficial to employers as it is to companies? Fractional work lets professionals operate more independently, with an entrepreneurial mindset, and without the drama of micromanagement. Because their time is limited, it also forces organizations to be more decisive, communicative, and efficient, reducing the likelihood of overwork. “The fractional model enables me to scale my personal impact by working with multiple companies at the same time,” says Danielle Azoulay, founder of The CSO Shop. With clearly defined hours, employees gain more control over their time, preventing burnout and allowing them to choose how many clients or hours they want to take on.
We must adapt to the ever-changing trends in the business world. Employees no longer stay. Gone are the days when employees stayed with a single company for decades. Loyalty has waned on both sides, as employees have become more mobile and companies have become more transactional. The old model is not always practical, and companies must be open to determining the best path forward for themselves, which may involve fractional employment.
Resources:
https://trellis.net/article/5-reasons-to-hire-a-fractional-cso-and-drive-success/
https://lbbonline.com/news/the-fractional-frontier-gabrielle-tenaglia-on-letting-go-of-relics
Reporting for Duty: Sustainability That Means Business
Reporting for Duty: Sustainability That Means Business
AIA reporting season has opened, is your firm ready? The 2030 Commitment reporting opened January 1 and will close March 31. The A&D Materials Pledge will open in February and close in late April. If you don’t have a plan, you are already behind! How is your firm tackling these vital sustainability programs in the AEC community?
Why is it important to report to AIA? Participation in these programs demonstrates a firm's dedication to sustainability, accountability, and leadership within the architectural and design industries. We have the ability to aggregate data from all firms to let us know where the industry is and you can see where your firm falls amongst the others. We can also work together to address the areas need improvement.
1. Advance Sustainability Goals
How does reporting for The AIA 2030 Commitment and The A&D Materials Pledge advance sustainability goals? You can’t improve what you don’t measure, so reporting allows firms to track progress toward reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure that firms are adopting and promoting holistic sustainable material selection practices.
Both the 2030 Commitment and the A&D Materials Pledge are collaborations with the larger AEC community ensuring that this work fits into the larger context of sustainable building practices. These programs have aligned with the ECHO Project on how to report embodied carbon, and the A&D Materials Pledge is aligned with the Common Materials Framework. Participation in these programs sets you up for success with certification organizations like ILFI and USGBC as well as reporting for the SE2050 Commitment and the MEP2040 challenge.
2. Demonstrate Leadership and Accountability
Participating in the AIA 2030 Commitment and A&D Materials Pledge showcases leadership in particular for small and medium-sized architecture firms by aligning them with the industry's top sustainability initiatives. Most of the large and highly competitive firms are actively pushing the boundaries of these initiatives. Programs like these help firms demonstrate accountability, attract clients who value responsible practices. By embracing low carbon designs and responsible material choices, firms position themselves as forward-thinking leaders in the architectural community.
3. Data-Driven Decision Making
As said above, "You can't improve what you don't measure" meaning that unless firms document where they are now, they have no way to track any progress they make towards goals.
Reporting equips firms with insights into their performance, helping them identify strengths and areas for improvement.
The aggregated data allows firms to examine where their best practices fall within the industry allowing them to understand if they are above or behind the curve, and thus make decisions based on that and where they want to be.
5. Prepare for Future Regulations
Governments and codes are increasingly requiring more strict energy efficiency and reporting. Some states have started to include clean construction and embodied carbon regulations. Starting this work now will allow your firm to be open to projects in those regions or prepared for when such regulations become required in your own region.
Get started! Hopefully, your firm’s data will be included the 2025 By the Numbers reports this fall. If your firm is struggling with the reporting process, understanding what is expected or just need someone to take on the role as taskmaster please book some time with me to discuss how I can help you meet these goals. Check out the services offered.