Energy benchmarking of commercial buildings: a low-cost pathway toward urban sustainability

Abstract

US cities are beginning to experiment with a regulatory approach to address information failures in the real estate market by mandating the energy benchmarking of commercial buildings. Understanding how a commercial building uses energy has many benefits; for example, it helps building owners and tenants identify poor-performing buildings and subsystems and it enables high-performing buildings to achieve greater occupancy rates, rents, and property values. This paper estimates the possible impacts of a national energy benchmarking mandate through analysis chiefly utilizing the Georgia Tech version of the National Energy Modeling System (GT-NEMS). Correcting input discount rates results in a 4.0% reduction in projected energy consumption for seven major classes of equipment relative to the reference case forecast in 2020, rising to 8.7% in 2035. Thus, the official US energy forecasts appear to overestimate future energy consumption by underestimating investments in energy-efficient equipment. Further discount rate reductions spurred by benchmarking policies yield another 1.3-1.4% in energy savings in 2020, increasing to 2.2-2.4% in 2035. Benchmarking would increase the purchase of energy-efficient equipment, reducing energy bills, CO 2 emissions, and conventional air pollution. Achieving comparable CO 2 savings would require more than tripling existing US solar capacity. Our analysis suggests that nearly 90% of the energy saved by a national benchmarking policy would benefit metropolitan areas, and the policy's benefits would outweigh its costs, both to the private sector and society broadly.

The Politics of Data-Driven Urban Climate Change Mitigation

“…Publicly available data and accounting methods can empower the public and other watchdogs to hold governments accountable for their emissions reduction targets and other climate change goals. Programs like energy use benchmarking, adopted by more than a dozen U.S. cities including New York City and Los Angeles, help to highlight major energy users in the city, providing an additional pathway for accountability (Cox, Brown, and Sun 2013). Indeed, many of the original advocates for data-driven decision making underscored its ability to provide an objective means by which to evaluate programs and policies (Goldsmith and Crawford 2014).…”

The Role of Pilot Projects in Urban Climate Change Policy Innovation

“…While a major selling point for such policy innovations is the potential for energy savings at the individual or building owner level, such savings are often uncertain and must be estimated using various technical models (Mills, ). City governments may not know what buildings stand to gain the most from energy efficiency retrofits, as energy use data are only beginning to be shared with policymakers through initiatives, such as energy use benchmarking (Cox, Brown, & Sun, ; Hillman & Ramaswami, ). There may be additional deficits in expertise regarding measures that should be taken by building owners to reduce energy use, available energy efficiency technologies, opportunities in building codes or other regulatory mechanisms to improve energy efficiency, and behavioral changes required by building occupants to ensure energy savings are realized.…”

Using information to close the energy efficiency gap: a review of benchmarking and disclosure ordinances

“…The cities adopting the ordinances and many analysts suggest that benchmarking programs are relatively low cost in comparison with other policies, especially policies targeting energy use and emissions in older buildings. Cox et al (2013) estimate compliance costs in New York City at approximately $200 per building. Hsu (2014b) cites personal communication with experts who put the cost at between $500 and $1500 per building.…”