How the Break-Fix Mentality Hinders Progress on Building Performance Standards
Building performance standards in the United States are hard to ignore. More than 50 cities, states, and counties already mandate that buildings publicly disclose their energy and water usage, and more than 21 of them additionally mandate energy audits or retrocommissioning. Multiple jurisdictions have announced impending deadlines for compliance, and those who are not compliant will find themselves paying hefty fines and penalties or risk public disclosure of their noncompliance.
Even with the increase in disclosure and performance standards across the country, many building owners and operators are stuck in a break-fix mentality when it comes to navigating the upgrades their buildings may require. The break-fix mentality upholds an order of operations that prefers to run equipment to the point of failure, and then proceeds to replace it with the exact same model or defaults to a contractor’s choice without any collaboration or discussion. While this might be the simplest option, it likely will not be sufficient as legislation evolves and matures. A replacement strategy needs to be implemented that incorporates equipment age, efficiency, and condition. This needs to be compared to the building performance standard requirements in order to make a calculated decision when replacing equipment.
Planning a roadmap to compliance is a necessary endeavor to not only meet compliance standards in the region, but to also capitalize on incentives, funding, and both cost and carbon savings. While tackling an entire portfolio may be daunting, putting plans in place now will dismantle the status quo approach to building maintenance, and allow for a greater return on investment down the road.
Prioritize Efforts Based on Jurisdiction
Owners with multiple buildings in varying locations need to understand the risk posed by incoming performance standards and regulations. Prioritizing the jurisdictions with the highest penalties, and the most urgent deadlines will allow internal teams to focus their attention on the most pressing regions.
The varying nuances in each location are significant: Consider the city of Denver, with its Energize Denver initiatives which set energy use intensity (EUI) targets to each specific building. Those EUI targets are due at the end of the year, with additional target set dates to follow in 2027 and 2030. The Denver noncompliance penalties are up to $124,500 per cycle. For those operating buildings in the Denver area, this region should likely be at the top of the list in order to meet EUI targets in a timely manner to avoid fines.
Then consider in Washington, DC, the Building Energy Performance Standard (BEPS) Program, which looks to reduce normalized site EUI by 20%. The noncompliance penalties are $10 per square foot up to $7.5 million per cycle. Investing in energy efficiency measures may depend on where companies have buildings, and the severity of non-compliance.
Create a Plan to Collect Actionable Data
One of the most important steps in exiting the break-fix mentality is to gather whole building data, an integral component to establishing a plan for compliance. Energy consumption, and in some jurisdictions water consumption, is needed for reporting purposes, and identifying gaps in equipment performance. Beyond that, a detailed inventory of equipment sizing, electrical specifications, and an assessment of the current condition of each system supports strategic decision-making to replace building equipment. Equipment age is an important factor, but should not be the only evaluation criteria.
The EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is a valuable resource for building owners and operators that helps ingest whole building consumption, assess performance, and identify areas for improvement in order to make the necessary informed decisions on equipment needs.
Strategically Map Equipment Replacements and Behavioral Changes
With the combination of whole building data, asset information, and where buildings are subject to BPS legislation, an implementation strategy can be developed.
Because the BPS legislation is not one size fits all, the metrics for reduction can differ, which needs to be taken into consideration when replacing equipment. For example, Energize Denver penalizes based on the amount of kBtus over a target amount. Because natural gas is much more kBtu intensive, it might make sense to prioritize an electrification project over something like lighting improvement, even though the financial payback may not be as attractive. If a project helps meet reduction goals outlined by BPS law, it may need to be prioritized in order to avoid fines. Or, the potential fines of noncompliance should be built into the evaluation criteria.
Building Performance Standards Fit into Larger Decarbonization Efforts
These emerging performance standards will challenge traditional operational protocols in the year ahead as they work alongside additional energy and climate legislation. How they relate and work alongside other pieces of legislation is an important consideration as well.
Positioning your organization for success in a marketplace that is increasingly focused on efficiency and decarbonization will require a new way of approaching building management. The break-fix mentality can hinder true progress, but actionable building data collected against your portfolio’s varying jurisdiction penalties will allow for the roadmap on equipment needs to be better planned for, resulting in a tangible roadmap to compliance success.
