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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cox et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: