1. Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: Labeling in NM Tammy Fiebelkorn Presentation to NM Association of Energy Engineers Sigler Albuquerque December 14, 2010

2. Value of Energy Efficiency  Reduced Operating Costs  Reduced Finite Resource Use  Reduced Environmental Impacts

3. Obstacles to Energy Efficiency  NMAEE Members: Lack of Public Awareness & Education Up-front Costs  Fits well with SWEEP’s studies and experience Add: Change is Scary!

4. Overcoming Obstacles to EE  Government Regulations – “Sticks” NMAEE  Regulations  Changes to business practices NM Examples  2009 NMECC – base requirements for new commercial buildings  SB200 – higher standards for new or renovated public buildings

5. Overcoming Obstacles to EE  Government Incentives – “Carrots” NMAEE  Financial incentives  Preferential tax treatment  Utility incentives NM Examples  NM Sustainable Buildings Tax Credit  Efficient Use of Energy Act – requires “all cost effective” DSM programs

6. Overcoming Obstacles to EE  Increasing Awareness NMAEE  Wide variety of ideas NM Examples  2009 NMECC – statewide training to local communities  Increased marketing of utility programs  Energy Use Disclosure – legislation potential

7. Energy Use Disclosure/Labeling  Provides for increased public awareness  Brings EE into the list of issues that market decisions are based upon  Public Support: In our NMAEE survey:  85% support this concept Echoed in other surveys and discussions

8. Labeling Benefits  Energy transparency in the market Creating competition based on energy efficiency will save consumers money and result in more efficient buildings (retrofits, management and behavior)

9. Labeling Benefits  Helps us understand building performance We know very little about how the 80 billion- square-foot commercial building stock consumes energy More building energy knowledge = smarter policies, more effective incentives, better building operations Long-term goal is data at tenant space, systems and equipment levels We can’t manage what we aren’t measuring

10. Labeling Benefits  Increases accountability for building performance “Design-Performance Gap” - Buildings aren’t being operated as intended Benchmarking will reveal well-operated vs. underperforming buildings Will help align predicted and actual performance by creating a feedback loop among architects, engineers, operators and tenants

11. Labeling Benefits – Long Term Source: Institute for Market Transformation

12. Labeling Benefits – Long Term Source: Institute for Market Transformation Price Premiums

13. Labeling - Not a New Concept  Labeling is required for many products

14. Labeling in the U.S. Source: Institute for Market Transformation

15. NY Labeling Requirements  Enacted in 2009  Most advanced package of energy efficiency laws for existing buildings in the nation  Requires: Energy Star Benchmarking & Disclosure Water Benchmarking Audits Tenant sub metering Lighting upgrades Code compliance for renovations

16. DC Labeling Requirements

17. International Labeling  Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) adopted by European Union in 2002 to help meet Kyoto targets  Australia Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act enacted July 2010  Building label in China developed by Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development

18. Labeling Options  Benchmarking the relative energy performance of buildings and disclosing info to market Asset rating  Measures structural performance Operational rating  Measures actual performance (utility bills)

19. Labeling Options

20. Portfolio Manager  Operational rating Most popular commercial building rating tool in nation “1” to “100” rating compared to peer buildings nationwide  Free, online and nontechnical Not an audit  Normalizes for climate, occupancy, density, plug loads and other factors  Built-in recognition for top achievers

21. Portfolio Manager Source: Institute for Market Transformation

22. NM Legislation Proposal  Require disclosure of Portfolio Manager rating/report All commercial and industrial buildings  Does not include multi-family

23. NM Legislation Proposal  Phase-In Schedule 2012 – 200,000 sq ft and over 2013 – 100,000 sq ft and over 2014 – 5,000 sq ft and over

24. NM Legislation Proposal  Disclosure Trigger: Upon listing for sale or rent  Yearly disclosure is an option NMAEE Members – 64% prefer yearly disclosure NY NY Program is an example Potential Drawbacks for NM:  Cost of setting up centralized database and website for reporting  Building owners without plans for rental or sale may not want to have public disclosure

25. NM Legislation Proposal  Utility Role: Provide usage data for entire buildings  All public buildings  Commercial buildings upon request from building owner/operator Data needs to be in a format that allows importation into Portfolio Manager Building compilation data has to maintain confidentiality

26. NM Legislation Proposal  Size Requirements: Small buildings excluded  5,000 sq ft and under  Other options: NMAEE Members  37% = All buildings  Drawbacks: too small for software, seen as onerous for “mom and pops”  27% = 10,000 sq ft  18% = 5,000 sq ft  18% = “Other”

27. NM Legislation Proposal  Public Building Requirements All public buildings required to disclose their Portfolio Manager rating  Yearly  Posted online  NMAEE – 92% agree  Public Building Requirements All public buildings required to disclose their Portfolio Manager rating  Yearly  Posted online  NMAEE – 92% agree

28. NM Legislative Proposal  Legislative support Bi-partisan appeal Little to no fiscal impact for state, building owners Support market decision making

29. NM Legislative Proposal  Community support #1 Priority for CCAE #1 Priority for EANM Want to add:  energy auditors  building owners & managers  engineers  tenants  architects  NMAEE and this audience!

30. SWEEP: Dedicated to More Efficient Energy Use in the Southwest Resources available online at: www.swenergy.org Tammy Fiebelkorn, NM Representative 505-410-3884 tfiebelkorn@swenergy.org