NAIOP commissioned ConSol, a consulting firm based Stockton, CA to determine the feasibility of significantly reducing energy use in commercial office buildings. The study was initiated to determine if commercial development could achieve reduction targets of 30%to 50% over the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standard, the benchmark often cited in legislation and other calls for mandatory reductions.
But the study found that cutting energy consumption by 30% over the benchmark is impractical and that a 50% reduction is unworkable.
It would take most property owners more than 10 years to recoup their investment in the high-efficiency technologies needed to reduce energy use by 30%, the study found, adding that government standards must account for economic realities and varying climates. "A 'one-size-fits-all' approach to mandatory energy reductions does not work in legislation or other mandates," NAIOP president Thomas Bisacquino stated. "It is important that policymakers and others realize the economic consequences that imposing mandated targets will have on the development industry."
Energy experts were quick to refute the study. Jeffrey Harris, a vice president at the pro-efficiency group Alliance to Save Energy, said he had major concerns with the study, including its assumptions about electricity prices and the cost of certain "green" features. Edward Mazria, founder of Architecture 2030, an organization focused on protecting the global environment, said, "Clearly, this study is meant to confuse the public and stall meaningful legislation, insuring that America remains dependent on foreign oil, natural gas and dirty conventional coal." And Jerry Yudelson, the author and founder of green building consulting firm Yudelson Associates, said simply "NAIOP's study is plain wrong."
ConSol based its conclusions on computer-modeled tests of a hypothetical four-story, 95,000-square-foot Class A office building in three different locations. The models considered improvements in building materials such as enhanced wall and roof insulations; varying levels of exterior glazing; higher-efficiency window assemblies; reduced air infiltration via the installation of an air barrier; reduced lighting power densities; higher-efficiency heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems equipment; and photovoltaic electricity energy generation.
The model analyzed the building's performance in climates represented by Baltimore, Chicago and Newport Beach, CA against a standard adopted by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers.
In the hypothetical models:
- The Chicago building achieved a 23% reduction in energy use above the ASHRAE benchmark at an additional upfront cost of $188,523;
- The Baltimore building achieved a 21.5% reduction in energy use for an estimated premium of $165,148;
- The Newport Beach building achieved a 15.8% reduction in energy use for an estimated premium of $169,898.
Energy forecasting is an inexact science. The modeling, for instance, did not account for non-regulated loads or fine-tuning performance adjustments like peak load shifting. However, the study called the forecasts "reasonable" when compared against the government's existing office building performance data compiled by the government.
Although solar and geothermal energy could help cut energy use even more, the researchers say both options are often impractical. In Newport Beach, for example, using geothermal sources would require two additional acres, an option it deemed an infeasible option for that location. And solar generation technologies would cost more than $1 million, which would take the property owner up to 100 years to recoup.
Bisacquino says energy efficiencies may become more economically feasible "with new technologies and federal, state and local incentives."
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Once you are an ALM Digital Member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking commercial real estate news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
*May exclude premium content© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
