Many commercial buildings still aren’t making simple changes that could save big bucks, new research finds. Here’s why – and what must be done to fix the problem • This post marks the launch of a new blog, The science of sustainability solutions

While many see beauty in a city skyline lit up at night, energy efficiency researchers see wasted resources and missed opportunities. Leaving lights on in empty buildings is just the tip of the iceberg. A recent behavioral study (pdf) by the University of California Davis and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) concludes that low cost changes in building operations can save from 5% to 30% of buildings energy usage, but often these changes aren't made.

"We know what the issues are, and we know how to solve them," said Stephen Selkowitz, senior advisor for building science at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. It's possible to get buildings to net zero or near net zero, but on average businesses still have a long way to go to improve efficiency, he said. "Energy use in buildings is a $400bn to $500bn a year problem."

If energy conservation saves money, what's preventing upgrades and retrofits of existing commercial buildings? Selkowitz, who has been studying building science for over 30 years, says that energy efficiency is a complex societal problem that needs a multi-pronged approach. Policy, rate structures and utilities all make a difference, but in the end, the motivation for change remains with corporate entities and individuals, he said.

Easy fixes

One of the easiest upgrades is LED lighting. It requires little upfront investment, and shows almost immediate returns. New lights can be installed overnight without causing disruption to occupants. In the US, the cost of LED lighting has grown increasingly more affordable, at least partly because it's being made by inexpensive labor in China, said Steve Gossett Jr, CEO of energy management company SCIenergy.

"Lighting gives you some of the biggest bang for your buck," said Mick Dalrymple, senior sustainability scientist at Arizona State University's Global Institute of Sustainability. "Rebates tend to be high, which makes the lights almost free."

A California Energy Commission study released in April found that LED upgrades cut energy use from lighting by 50% without sacrificing light levels or occupant satisfaction. The study also estimates that savings will be two times higher by the year 2020, when LED lights become even more efficient.

Adding interior and exterior shades is also relatively low cost and effective. Another California Energy Commission study from December, which Selkowitz co-authored, found that adding exterior shading systems in sunny climates yielded net zero energy performance levels and significantly reduced demands for electricity during peak periods. Daylighting (such as windows and skylights) instead of electric light during the day – also improved energy efficiency.

Other simple fixes include broadening the range of temperatures inside a building, scheduling reduced services (such as less lighting) when buildings are unoccupied and reducing simultaneous heating and cooling, said Portland State University's Mithra Moezzi, a principal researcher for the UC Davis and CARB study.

Barriers to change

Of course, low-hanging fruit may not always be enough. Some retrofits require major investments and disruptions, such as overhauling heating and cooling systems, intelligent monitoring systems, insulation and windows. Unsurprisingly, the higher the initial cost and the longer the wait for returns, the less likely a project is to be approved. Heating and cooling systems can last for decades, and many owners and facility managers subscribe to the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Often businesses don't own their buildings, which leads to a split-incentive problem. Landlords are responsible for capital improvements, while tenants are responsible for operating expenses. Large buildings may have only one meter, making it difficult to correlate energy savings to particular businesses. On the balance sheet, energy efficiencies are often seen as an external costs outside of the core business model, which can push projects to the sidelines.

The result? "Projects with six-month payback periods or that are cash-flow positive from day one don't get done," said Dave Jaros, vice president of marketing at Noesis, a finance platform for energy project developers. He likens the energy upgrade decision process to peace talks, where everyone is talking past each other and little changes.

Overestimates

Other barriers include misconstrued savings and cost estimates, said Pete Kramer, energy services sales leader for TraneOregon, which sells commercial and industrial heating and cooling systems. "There are multiple factors in the estimations, but a lot of the stuff that we look at is fantastic from an investment standpoint," he said.

A recent ASU study, Energize Phoenix, found that some contractors, who were conducting energy upgrades as part of the program, overestimated cost savings by as much as 100%, while others were right on target.

But contractors and energy efficiency developers are not the only ones overestimating results. "Business decision makers tend to overestimate the energy efficiency of their buildings," said Lee Ann Head, vice president of research and insight at the Shelton Group, which conducts research on energy markets.

Behavior change

Alan Meier, senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a faculty researcher at UC Davis's Energy Efficiency Center, points out that energy research today is shifting away from focusing on technology, finance and individual behavior to examining social change. Some individual changes, such as turning off lights or pulling down shades, are becoming less relevant given today's advances in technology and automation.

To Meier, buildings are social systems. He believes that economic incentives like rebates, while helpful, don't touch on some of the deeper issues at play. For one thing, building operators, who manage facilities on a daily basis, typically don't see electricity bills. Upgrades may increase the likelihood of occupant complaints, which may be tied to their job performance, according to the UC Davis and CARB study, for which Meier was also a principal investigator. In addition, the study found that occupants overall are dissatisfied with building temperature, lighting, air quality and acoustics.

Meier believes that more incentives beyond financial rewards, such as certification and recognition, are needed. "We need to identify ways in which we can reward people for not only making people more comfortable and happier, but also for saving energy," he said.

Buildings as systems

Selkowitz points out that focusing on upgrading and measuring individual buildings may get in the way of solutions, because buildings are key part of streets and cities. He gives the example of a high-rise hospital that uses a lot of energy. It may be built in an urban environment with other buildings around it that shade its roof and walls. The hospital cannot install PV solar panels to generate its own power and reach net zero energy, but the solar panels could be installed on neighboring buildings and shared.

Energy efficiency researchers agree that systems-level thinking is required to overcome barriers to energy efficiency. Owners may need to explore community-based solutions that move beyond individuals' behavior changes – or even changes to individual buildings.

Rachael Post is a writer, digital strategist and professor of emerging media in Los Angeles.

The science behind sustainability solutions blog is funded by the Arizona State University Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.