NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Industry Research and 

Recommendations for New 

Commercial Buildings

Bob Hendron, Matt Leach, Natalie Gregory, 

and Shanti Pless

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Steve Selkowitz and Paul Matthew

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5500-60390

May 2014
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Industry Research and 

Recommendations for New 

Commercial Buildings 

Bob Hendron, Matt Leach, Natalie Gregory, 

and Shanti Pless

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Steve Selkowitz and Paul Matthew

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Prepared under Task No. BEC8.1501

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5500-60390

May 2014
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

 Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
i 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Arah Schuur and Sonia Punjabi, of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

Building Technologies Office for their leadership and support of this project. The authors also 

thank Jeremiah Williams, Ian Lahiff, Amy Jiron, and Amir Roth from the DOE Building 

Technologies Office for their valuable assistance. The authors express their appreciation to 

Kevin Settlemyre of Sustainable IQ who assisted Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(LBNL), and Maureen McIntyre of McIntyre Communications Inc., who assisted NREL, for 

providing valuable written material and graphics used in the report. In addition, the authors 

thank William Livingood, Rois Langner, Paul Torcellini, Ron Judkoff, Mark Swisher, Eric 

Bonnema, Linh Truong, Gabrial Boeckman, Marjorie Schott, Stefanie Woodward, Kristy 

Usnick, Michele DeMark, and Joelynn Schroeder for their contributions to this report. 

The authors also express our strong appreciation to members of the commercial new construction 

community who contributed ideas, recommendations, and thoughtful comments at various stages 

in the process:

Ron Abo The ABO Group, Inc. Charles Klee Payette

Peter Alspach Arup Ira Krepchin E Source

John Andary Integral Group Julianne Laue DLR Group

Mark Bassett Gensler Mary Ann Lazarus HOK

Gary Becker

Sacramento 

Municipal Utility 

District

Arlen Li Payette

Nick Bengston 

 PECI Kathy Loftus Whole Foods Market

Kathia Benitez New York 

Presbyterian Hospital Andrea Love Payette

Aaron Binkley Prologis Joel Loveland U. Wash. Integrated 

Design Lab

Zorana Bosnic HOK Erin McConahey Arup

Benjamin Callam Gensler Katie Mesia Gensler

David Carallo Fitzmartin Consulting 

Company John Murphy Trane Ingersoll Rand

Rob Cassidy Building Design + 

Construction Thomas Ochtera City of Westminster

Eliot Crowe PECI Tim Peglow MD Anderson Cancer 

Center

John D’Angelo

 

New York 

Presbyterian Hospital Mark Perepelitza SERA Architects

Catherine 

Dannenbring Skanska Lisa Petterson SERA Architects
ii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Michele Davison Colorado Energy 

Office John Priebe The ABO Group, Inc.

Laura Debonis Gensler John Pulley Buro Happold

Jennifer Elling Excel Energy Teresa Rainey Skidmore, Owings & 

Merrill LLP

Mike Ellinger Whole Foods Market Suzanne Robinson Vanderweil Engineers

Don Fitzmartin Fitzmartin Consulting 

Company Cindy Strecker PECI

Bruce Fowle FXFowle Prem Sundharam DLR Group

Scott Frank JB&B Bill Talbert Affiliated Engineers, 

Inc.

Angie Fyfe USGBC Colorado 

Chapter Wayne Thalasinos

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration

Tim Gaidis HOK Michael Tillou Atelier Ten

Michael 

Hinchcliffe Payette Peter Turnbull Pacific Gas & Electric

Don Horn GSA Kate Turpin SERA Architects

Tom Hootman RNL Design Clayton Ulrich Hines

Roger Hubert Trane Commercial 

Systems

Martin Weiland GSA

John Jennings Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance Phil Williams Webcor

David Johnson CO Architects Scott Williams Target

Ilana Judah FXFowle Chad Wisler Vanderweil Engineers

Shruti Kasarekar Atelier Ten Kevin Yoshida The ABO Group, Inc.

Mike Keesee 

Sacramento 

Municipal Utility 

District

Corey Zarecki Gundersen Lutheran 

Health System

Nico Kienzl Atelier Ten

Many other stakeholders provided input to previous roadmaps, action plans, and policy 

documents, which were relied on heavily in defining the priorities in this report. These 

contributors are too numerous to list, but can be found in the original documents cited in the 

reference list.
iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Nomenclature

AECO architecture, engineering, construction, and owner/operator

AEDG Advanced Energy Design Guide 

AHRI Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

AIA American Institute of Architects

BBA Better Buildings Alliance

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association 

BTO Building Technologies Office

Btu British thermal unit

CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

CBI Commercial Building Integration 

CBP Commercial Buildings Partnership

cfm cubic feet per minute 

COMNET Commercial Energy Services Network

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ET Emerging Technologies Program

EUI energy use intensity

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

ft foot 

ft2 square foot 

GSA U.S. General Services Administration

GSEP Global Superior Energy Performance (Partnership) 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

ICC International Code Council 

kW kilowatt 

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

M&V measurement and verification

NASEO National Association of State Energy Officials 

NBI New Buildings Institute

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

NZE net-zero energy 

NZER net-zero energy ready 

O&M operations and maintenance 

PV photovoltaic 

quad quadrillion Btu

SEE Action State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network

SEED Standard Energy Efficiency Data (Platform)

TLCC total life cycle cost

USGBC U.S. Green Building Council 

W Watt

WIP Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program 
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

For some time, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has developed and deployed resources, 

methods, tools, and technologies that advance the design and construction of high performance 

and net-zero energy (NZE) commercial buildings. Although many principles of high 

performance buildings are well understood, uptake in the marketplace has been limited and 

riddled with real and perceived barriers, technical roadblocks, and financial constraints. 

Broad implementation of high performance buildings is likely to require an integrated approach 

that accelerates the adoption of energy efficiency technologies and whole-building design 

principles by leveraging DOE expertise and resources as well as building new partnerships and 

enhancing existing relationships between key public and private sector stakeholders. 

Toward this end, the authors evaluated industry needs and developed logic models to support 

possible future commercial new construction research and deployment efforts that could be led 

or supported by DOE’s Commercial Building Integration program or other national initiatives. 

The authors believe that these recommendations support a proposed course of action from the 

current state of commercial building energy efficiency to a possible long-term goal of achieving 

significant market penetration of cost-effective NZE buildings in all building sectors and 

climates by 2030. These recommendations emphasize the energy efficiency component of NZE, 

or net-zero energy ready (NZER) buildings. 

Several definitions are useful for clarifying the proposed goal: 

• NZER: A building that includes all efficiency measures that are more cost effective than 

renewable energy

• NZE: A building that generates as much source energy using renewable energy sources 

as it consumes on an annual basis, and complies with one or more of the class definitions 

in Pless and Torcellini (2010) 

• Cost-effective NZE: A building that meets the definition of NZE with a life cycle cost 

below ASHRAE 90.1-2010 when renewable generation is added. 

The overall development process for the recommendations in this report is illustrated in Figure 

ES–1. 

Figure ES–1 Overall process for developing the recommendations in this report
v 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The process began with a review of 21 new construction roadmaps, action plans, market 

analyses, technology analyses, and policy documents developed by diverse organizations in 

government and industry, and with inputs from a large cross-section of stakeholders. Several 

conclusions were drawn from this review: 

• Existing roadmaps provide extensive analysis of technical and market barriers, and 

recommendations for key market sectors and deployment vehicles. 

• Several market analyses address the current and future states of the commercial new 

construction industry, including trends toward high performance. 

• Many roadmaps establish multiyear targets for industry that are consistent with the goals 

of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which calls for NZE new commercial 

buildings to be economically viable by 2030, for half the commercial building stock to be 

NZE by 2040, and for all commercial buildings to be NZE by 2050. 

• The literature defines NZE in various ways. Many definitions require sufficient roofmounted photovoltaics (PV) to meet the annual energy needs of a building; many others 

allow alternative methods of accounting for renewables (on-site PV, off-site PV, city 

block or community scale, renewable energy credits, NZE capable, or NZER with no 

explicit requirement for PV). Each definition has significant technical (e.g., site access) 

and financial (e.g., first cost) implications.

A high-level gap analysis was conducted to identify development, demonstration, and 

deployment opportunities that would address underserved industry needs at a national level. The 

process included: 

• A comparison of the objectives of current DOE programs with barriers already identified 

in existing roadmaps, based on material publicly available through program websites. A 

forward-looking review of the research agendas for current DOE programs was not 

performed, nor was an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs. 

• Phone conversations with more than 50 stakeholders 

• A roundtable meeting with 23 stakeholders 

• Two webinars with building owners and real estate developers. 

The gap analysis process resulted in the following five recommended high priority focus areas 

and key near-term strategies that could be pursued as part of an integrated federal effort: 

1. Energy benchmark data. System and whole-building level energy benchmark data, 

organized by building type and climate, which can be used for setting performance 

targets for new buildings.

• Define normalization methods and metrics that address building use, size, and 

other energy drivers. 

• Create analysis-based whole-building benchmarks by climate zone and building 

type, normalized as appropriate. 

• Establish analysis-based whole-building targets for high performance and NZER 

buildings. 
vi 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Define end-use level targets consistent with whole-building targets. 

• Leverage Portfolio Manager and the Building Performance Database to gather a 

statistically significant set of high performance new construction benchmark data. 

2. Enhanced modeling tools. Improved modeling tools to support financial decisionmaking, whole-building design, analysis of new technologies, model calibration, and 

identification of operational and behavioral influences on energy use throughout the 

building life cycle.

• Provide efficiency package optimization capability. 

• Develop better early stage design tools, such as using heuristic-based analysis

derived from large-scale simulations of efficiency perturbations individually and 

in combination. . 

• Develop prepackaged optimized design solutions for small businesses. 

• Conduct a study of user interface needs for diverse audiences and applications, 

and customize user interfaces for those audiences. 

• Perform laboratory and field testing of high performance building equipment and 

complex systems to improve modeling algorithm accuracy. 

3. Better cost data. Objective, vetted average component- and system-level cost data for 

analysis of return on investment. 

• Perform an assessment of industry cost data workflows.

• Identify cost data parameters that influence design decisions.

• Establish a cost estimation procedure that systematically accounts for system 

interactions and tradeoffs.

• Develop a clear business case for community-based cost data collection to 

motivate building owners; architecture, engineering, construction, and 

owner/operations (AECO) companies; equipment manufacturers; and equipment 

vendors to supply cost information to a public database. 

• Expand partnerships for cost data collection and maintenance. 

• Create a publicly accessible cost database that facilitates early design decisionmaking, or support enhancements to existing databases to include cost data. 

4. Commissioning and operational strategies. Effective commissioning and operational 

methods, technologies, and tools, demonstrated through case studies. 

• Improve project delivery methods to better ensure that high performance 

buildings meet specified targets.

• Study the nature and magnitude of commissioning and operating failures that 

cause buildings to perform below expectations. 

• Document best practices for commissioning, operating, and maintaining advanced 

systems and technologies in high performance buildings. 
vii 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Develop educational materials for building occupants about the features of high 

performance buildings and simple things they can do to help such buildings 

perform optimally.

• Identify robust design strategies, self-diagnostic capabilities, and automated fault 

detection techniques that mitigate the impact of operational deficiencies. 

5. Integrated resources. Resources that include new construction case studies, best 

practice guides, datasets, and tools in a more accessible, adaptable, and user-friendly 

format:

• Evaluate current federal resource integration practices to determine opportunities 

for improved delivery of information. 

• Create a workflow specification and resource taxonomy that allows all available

resources to be filtered according to project parameters and intended audience. 

• Establish the requirements of a centralized gateway for resources that would 

enable users to find the information they need in one place. 

• Document case studies that emphasize cost and performance details, and use 

additional analysis to expand the applicability of the relevant design and 

construction strategies to a wider range of project parameters.

This report describes key activities and collaborations in each focus area that the authors believe 

can overcome the major barriers and lead to innovation and more rapid market acceptance of 

NZE commercial buildings. In addition, this report includes recommended long-term efficiency 

and deployment goals and possible integrating strategies for leveraging existing programs and 

coordinating new initiatives to produce the greatest impact. This report focuses on three stages 

of the market transformation process: (1) development, (2) demonstration, and (3) deployment. 

Completion of each stage can be validated using a stage-gate process with specific go/no-go 

criteria and metrics. Certain commercial building types, such as non-refrigerated warehouses, 

may be ready for deployment immediately; others may require several years of effort to develop 

cost-effective measures and improved technical approaches.
viii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... i

Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. x

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. xi

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Key Questions.................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Process for Developing Recommendations ..................................................................................... 4

2.3 Existing Resources........................................................................................................................... 5

3 State of Commercial New Construction............................................................................................. 7

3.1 Industry Trends................................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Energy Use....................................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Trends in Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Key Leverage Points...................................................................................................................... 11

3.5 Use of Existing DOE Resources.................................................................................................... 12

4 Gap Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Results of Approach #1: Analysis of Barriers and Existing DOE Programs............................... 13

4.2 Results of Approach #2: Industry Stakeholder Conversations ..................................................... 14

4.3 Stakeholder Roundtable and Webinars.......................................................................................... 17

5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 21

5.1 Program Goals ............................................................................................................................... 21

5.2 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 22

5.3 Overall Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 26

5.4 Focus Area #1: Energy Benchmark Data...................................................................................... 29

5.4.1 Critical Needs.................................................................................................................. 29

5.4.2 Strategic Approach.......................................................................................................... 31

5.4.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs..................................................................................... 34

5.4.4 Potential Collaborators.................................................................................................... 34

5.4.5 Solution Timeline............................................................................................................ 36

5.5 Focus Area #2: Enhanced Modeling Tools................................................................................... 36

5.5.1 Critical Needs.................................................................................................................. 37

5.5.2 Strategic Approach.......................................................................................................... 38

5.5.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs..................................................................................... 41

5.5.4 Potential Collaborators.................................................................................................... 42

5.5.5 Solution Timeline............................................................................................................ 42

5.6 Focus Area #3: Better Cost Data .................................................................................................. 43

5.6.1 Critical Needs.................................................................................................................. 43

5.6.2 Strategic Approach.......................................................................................................... 45

5.6.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs..................................................................................... 47

5.6.4 Potential Collaborators.................................................................................................... 48

5.6.5 Solution Timeline............................................................................................................ 49

5.7 Focus Area #4: Commissioning and Operational Strategies......................................................... 49

5.7.1 Critical Needs.................................................................................................................. 49

5.7.2 Strategic Approach.......................................................................................................... 51

5.7.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs..................................................................................... 53

5.7.4 Potential Collaborators.................................................................................................... 54

5.7.5 Solution Timeline............................................................................................................ 55

5.8 Focus Area #5: Integrated Resources............................................................................................ 55

5.8.1 Critical Needs.................................................................................................................. 55
ix

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.8.2 Strategic Approach.......................................................................................................... 56

5.8.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs..................................................................................... 58

5.8.4 Potential Collaborators.................................................................................................... 58

5.8.5 Solution Timeline............................................................................................................ 59

5.9 Renewable Energy and Grid Interactions ...................................................................................... 60

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 61

7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A: Roadmaps, Policy Studies, and Market Analyses Used To Guide 

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 67

Appendix B: Prioritization of Barriers Identified in Previous Roadmaps .......................................... 69
x 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure ES–1 Overall process for developing the recommendations in this report....................... iv

Figure 1–1 DOE programs that may support or be supported by CBI in the execution of 

new construction research and deployment priorities .................................................................... 2

Figure 2–1 Process for developing the recommendations in this report......................................... 5

Figure 2–2 Categories of stakeholders consulted throughout the process .................................... 5

Figure 3–1 Recent and projected construction trends in the United States ($ billion)................... 7

Figure 3–2 Energy use trends for commercial buildings................................................................... 8

Figure 3–3 Source energy breakdown by end use in commercial buildings, 2012....................... 10

Figure 4–1 Gap analysis approach #1................................................................................................ 14

Figure 5–1 United States climate zones used in ASHRAE 90.1 (Briggs et al. 2003) ..................... 22

Figure 5–2 NZE and NZER in context of optimal life cycle cost curve ........................................... 24

Figure 5–3 Achieving cost-effective NZE buildings ......................................................................... 25

Figure 5–4 Recommended new construction stage-gate criteria ................................................... 26

Figure 5–5 Example stage-gate timelines for different commercial building types...................... 27

Figure 5–6 Proposed classification system for new construction solutions ................................ 28

Figure 5–7 Projected impacts of solution classes at various construction stages ...................... 29

Figure 5–8 Linking critical energy benchmarking needs to audience and impact........................ 30

Figure 5–9 Dimensions of energy benchmark data needed for effective target setting............... 31

Figure 5–10 Proposed energy benchmark data solution timeline ................................................ 36

Figure 5–11 Linking critical energy modeling needs to audience and impact ............................ 37

Figure 5–12 Four categories of CBI support for modeling tool engines developed by the 

BTO ET program................................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 5–13 Proposed enhanced modeling tool solution timeline ............................................... 43

Figure 5–14 Linking critical cost data needs to audience and impact ......................................... 45

Figure 5–15 Proposed cost data solution timeline ......................................................................... 49

Figure 5–16 Linking critical operational needs to audience and impact...................................... 50

Figure 5–17 Possible commissioning and operational strategy solution timeline ..................... 55

Figure 5–18 Linking critical integrated resource needs to audience and impact ....................... 56

Figure 5–19 Possible integrated resource solution timeline ......................................................... 59
xi 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Tables

Table 3–1 Energy Use Characteristics of the 16 CBECS Building Sectors .................................... 9

Table 4–1 Research and Deployment Gaps Identified Using Approach #1.................................. 14

Table 4–2 Perceived Research and Deployment Gaps Identified through Stakeholder 

Conversations (Approach #2) ........................................................................................................... 17

Table 5–1 Energy Performance Metrics Commonly Used by Building Owners ........................... 32

Table 5–2 Energy Performance Metrics That Reflect Societal Impacts......................................... 33

Table 5–3 Classification of Proposed Solutions to Energy Benchmarking Challenges ............. 33

Table 5–4 Potential Key Collaborators for Energy Benchmark Data Solutions........................... 35

Table 5–5 Classification of Possible Solutions to Modeling Tool Challenges............................. 41

Table 5–6 Potential Key Collaborators for Enhanced Modeling Tool Solutions.......................... 42

Table 5–7 Classification of Possible Solutions to Cost Data Challenges .................................... 47

Table 5–8 Potential Key Collaborators for Cost Data Solutions.................................................... 48

Table 5–9 Classification of Possible Solutions to Commissioning and Operational 

Challenges........................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 5–10 Potential Key Collaborators for Commissioning and Operational Solutions............. 54

Table 5–11 Classification of Possible Solutions to Integrated Resource Challenges .................. 58

Table 5–12 Potential Key Collaborators for Integrated Resource Solutions.................................. 59

Table A–1 Publications Used To Guide the Recommendations in This Report ........................... 67

Table B–1 Identified Barriers.............................................................................................................. 69
1 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

For some time, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has developed and deployed resources, 

methods, tools, and technologies that advance the design and construction of high performance 

and net-zero energy (NZE) commercial buildings. Although many principles are well 

understood, uptake in the marketplace has been limited and riddled with real and perceived 

barriers, technical roadblocks, and financial constraints. A combination of solutions that address 

technical, educational, and cost barriers is needed to sustain long-term advancements in building 

energy performance. 

Broad implementation of high performance buildings can be realized using an integrated and 

tiered approach that accelerates the adoption of energy efficiency technologies, whole-building 

design principles, and collaboration between builders, designers, and owners during the 

construction process. This can be achieved by leveraging existing expertise and programs, 

building new partnerships, and enhancing relationships with key public and private stakeholders. 

Toward this end, the authors endeavored to define a possible logic model for prioritizing and 

coordinating DOE’s portfolio of commercial new construction research and deployment 

activities that are either led or strongly supported by the Commercial Buildings Integration (CBI) 

Program. The recommendations would chart a course from the current state of commercial 

building energy efficiency, through a series of intermediate objectives that gradually improve the 

average performance of new commercial buildings, and ultimately to the long-term goal of 

initiating broad deployment of cost-effective NZE buildings in all building sectors and climates 

by 2030. 

In formulating this goal, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) goal was 

chosen as a key point of reference. EISA calls for NZE new commercial buildings to be

economically viable by 2030, half the commercial building stock to be NZE by 2040, and all 

commercial buildings to be NZE by 2050. It was deemed important for any proposed new 

construction research and deployment goals to be supportive of the EISA goals. 

To ensure that the proposed activities provide real value in the marketplace, a diverse set of 

industry stakeholders was invited to suggest new or enhanced activities that DOE could 

undertake to encourage greater emphasis on energy efficiency in the new commercial buildings 

market. Involving key stakeholders in shaping the recommendations in this report is more likely 

to result in a substantial industry commitment to partnering with DOE to achieve program goals. 

Key elements of this report include a strategic foundation, multiyear program goals, definitions 

of essential roles, and collaborative opportunities between DOE’s CBI program and key industry 

and government partners. It also recommends metrics and processes for tracking program 

success, including stage-gate criteria.

The recommendations center on focusing, integrating, and enhancing CBI’s portfolio of projects

and aligning that portfolio to related Building Technologies Office (BTO) initiatives, as well as 

other DOE, government, public, and private energy efficiency efforts in new commercial 

buildings. Necessary collaborations with other BTO programs (including Emerging 

Technologies, Residential Building Integration, Building Energy Codes, and Appliance 

Standards) are acknowledged, but prioritizing activities for those programs was not the intent of 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

this project. The same is true for other DOE buildings-related programs such as the Federal 

Energy Management Program (FEMP), the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program 

(WIP), and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

The recommendations in this report are intended to leverage active DOE programs, and identify 

ways that DOE or other organizations can fill in gaps between those programs. They also 

address possible improvements to the integration of research and deployment efforts for new 

commercial buildings so BTO can move forward with a comprehensive and effective program. 

This report does not recommend replacing or displacing current programs. The intent of this 

report is to provide suggestions on broad new activity areas that might impact the development, 

demonstration, and deployment of high-performance buildings. For example, this report does 

not address building energy codes due to the depth of existing literature and well-established 

processes for developing and maintaining codes. Instead the report focuses on emerging 

opportunities in the commercial new construction market. Many DOE programs have 

developed, or are in the process of developing, their own roadmaps and multiyear plans. It is not 

the intent of this report to supplant or supersede those plans, but simply to highlight research 

areas where more active collaboration with CBI would be beneficial. 

Figure 1–1 illustrates the relationship between CBI and other DOE programs that support energy 

efficiency in new commercial buildings. Emerging Technologies and FEMP will be especially 

important DOE programs in relation to the activities discussed in this report.

Figure 1–1 DOE programs that may support or be supported by CBI in the 

execution of new construction research and deployment priorities

Collaborating with organizations beyond DOE may be needed to achieve program goals, 

minimize overall costs, and reduce duplication of effort. However, recommendations are not 
3 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

made for the focus areas of organizations other than DOE, except where the success of DOE’s 

programs are likely to depend on support from, or partnership with, outside organizations. 

This report embodies the recommendations of its authors, representing the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), with 

extensive input from industry stakeholders. It may not represent DOE’s specific goals, priorities, 

and planned research and deployment activities. 
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Methodology

The methodology used to develop this report leveraged available resources to the extent possible, 

and supplemented those resources with additional analysis and targeted stakeholder inputs. 

Three major tasks summarize the process:

Task 1: Initial scoping and understanding the landscape 

Task 2: Gap analysis and stakeholder consultations

Task 3: Formulation of recommended strategies 

2.1 Key Questions

Several key foundational questions were addressed as part of this approach: 

1. What is the current state of the commercial new construction industry?

2. What energy savings targets are appropriate for new construction? 

3. How could the targets be framed?

4. Which steps might industry take to achieve those targets? 

5. What are the critical leverage points in the construction process?

6. What are the industry’s highest priority technology and deployment barriers?

7. What might be DOE’s central role?

8. What are the complementary roles of the national laboratories, state and local 

governments, utilities, industry associations, trade organizations, and other essential 

collaborators?

9. Which high priority markets could DOE target?

10. What might be the key audiences for DOE resources and products?

11. Which deployment vehicles could be emphasized?

2.2 Process for Developing Recommendations

A multistep process emphasizing stakeholder input was used to answer these questions (see 

Figure 2–1), many of which were adequately addressed by existing roadmaps. The remaining 

questions were addressed through a review of the published information about current DOE 

programs and direct interactions with key stakeholders. These questions related primarily to 

possible DOE roles in support of the broad implementation of NZE buildings and to key 

solutions that DOE can provide in the near and long terms to fulfill those roles. Stakeholder 

input and peer reviews at several points helped increase the likelihood that the recommended 

activities would target the industry’s most pressing needs and provide the greatest impact for 

taxpayer dollars spent. Stakeholders represented a variety of perspectives from industry, 

academia, and government (see Figure 2–2).
5 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 2–1 Process for developing the recommendations in this report

Figure 2–2 Categories of stakeholders consulted throughout the process

2.3 Existing Resources

Information and insights were gathered from 21 new construction roadmaps, action plans, market 

analyses, technology analyses, and policy documents (henceforth referred to generically as 

roadmaps) developed by various stakeholders in government and industry. These roadmaps 

were analyzed to determine which research questions (see Section 2.1) have already been 

answered. The recentness, audience, and degree of industry participation were considered when 

selecting roadmaps for inclusion in the study. Several conclusions were drawn from the existing 

roadmap review: 

• Existing roadmaps provide extensive analysis of technical and market barriers, and 

recommendations for key market sectors and deployment vehicles. 

• Several market analyses address the current and future states of the commercial new 

construction industry, including trends toward high performance. 

• Many roadmaps establish multiyear targets for industry that are consistent with EISA 

2007 goals. 

• The roadmaps contain very little commentary on DOE’s essential role or specific 

solutions DOE could pursue. 

• The literature defines NZE in various ways. Many definitions require sufficient roofmounted photovoltaics (PV) to meet the annual energy needs of a building; many others 
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

allow alternative methods of accounting for renewables (on-site PV, off-site PV, city 

block or community scale, renewable energy credits, NZE capable, or NZER with no 

explicit requirement for PV). Each definition has significant technical (e.g., site access) 

and financial (e.g., first cost) implications.

Recommendations and information from the existing roadmaps were relied on heavily in the 

development of this report. Appendix A lists all 21 roadmaps reviewed in this process. 
7 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 State of Commercial New Construction

3.1 Industry Trends

The U.S. construction industry appears to have stabilized after several years of decline, and some 

recent industry studies express optimism. Commercial new construction increased by 5% in 

2012, and is projected to increase by 12% in 2013. The largest projected growth is in the retail 

sector, but similar growth is predicted across the commercial buildings sector. Tight lending 

practices and high vacancy rates remain major challenges to a strong recovery in commercial 

new construction. In addition, budget constraints for state and local governments have inhibited 

growth in the institutional building market (Engage360 2010). The construction rate for 

institutional buildings decreased by 13% in 2012, and no growth is projected in 2013. The 

largest growth is expected in the southern and western regions of the United States. The 

combined investment in new construction for commercial and institutional buildings is projected 

to be $142 billion in 2013. A summary of projected construction trends for several key building 

types CBI is shown in Figure 3–1. 

Figure 3–1 Recent and projected construction trends in the United States ($ billion)

(McGraw Hill 2012a)

3.2 Energy Use

Historical and projected source energy use trends associated with existing and new (built after 

2012) commercial buildings are shown in Figure 3–2 (DOE 2003, DOE 2012a). New 

construction is predicted to add approximately 0.40 quadrillion Btu (quads)/year to the total; the 

decommissioning and deconstruction of existing buildings, along with efficiency improvements 

through retrofits, reduce the projected total by about 0.28 quads/year. The cumulative source 

energy use for all commercial buildings constructed after 2012 is projected to be almost 7 

quads/year by 2030. This will represent approximately 35% of all energy use associated with 
8 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

commercial buildings. Both the construction rate and the energy use intensity (EUI) of new 

commercial buildings are predicted to be relatively constant. These predictions indicate that EIA 

made very conservative assumptions about the market penetration of energy efficiency over the 

next 17 years. A scenario in which DOE’s new construction research and deployment efforts 

successfully reduce the source energy use of new commercial buildings by 5%/year is indicated 

by the dashed line, ultimately leading to energy savings of 3.5 quads/year by 2030. 

Figure 3–2 Energy use trends for commercial buildings 

(DOE 2003, DOE 2012a) 

The largest fraction of energy use in the commercial sector is 

consumed by office buildings, primarily because they are the 

most common building type (DOE 2003). Service, retail, and 

educational buildings also constitute a large fraction of energy 

use. Building types with the highest EUIs include laboratories, 

restaurants, and hospitals. Although these energy-intensive 

building types have high potential for energy savings, their use 

of specialized equipment presents unusual challenges for 

developing efficiency measures that can be manufactured and 

implemented at scale without sacrificing core functionality. 

The lowest EUIs are seen in warehouses and houses of worship 

(Griffith et al. 2007). A summary of the energy use 

characteristics of the 16 commercial building types analyzed in 

the 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS) is provided in Table 3–1. 

Source Energy

Source energy reflects the 

total energy use associated 

with a building, including 

generation, distribution, and 

transmission losses. EIA 

applies a multiplier of 

approximately 3 to site 

electricity use to calculate 

source energy. No 

multipliers are used for other 

fuel types in EIA data.
9 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The energy end uses in commercial buildings are very diverse (see Figure 3–3). Lighting, 

heating, cooling, and ventilation are the largest individual loads, but numerous other equipment 

loads add up to a significant fraction of energy use and can be very challenging to address. 

Other equipment loads include service station equipment, automated teller machines, 

telecommunications equipment, medical equipment, pumps, emergency electric generators, and 

small-scale manufacturing. EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (DOE 2012a) does not predict a 

major shift in this end use breakdown by 2030, except for a small increase in the percentage of 

energy use associated with miscellaneous equipment loads. EIA also does not predict a large 

reduction in average EUI for new buildings (~7% by 2035), but the assumptions made by EIA 

can be conservative, and do not necessarily reflect implementation of a comprehensive set of 

programs targeting new construction. Clearly, a broad-based approach to efficiency 

improvements will be needed to significantly reduce energy use, including finding the right 

balance point between efficiency and renewable energy.

Table 3–1 Energy Use Characteristics of the 16 CBECS Building Sectors 

(DOE 2003)
10 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 3–3 Source energy breakdown by end use in commercial buildings, 2012 

(DOE 2012b) 

3.3 Trends in Energy Efficiency

Some industry experts believe that the sluggish new construction market provides an opportunity 

to refocus the industry on greater energy efficiency and better project delivery methods as the 

market recovers (NBI 2012). McGraw Hill (2012b) indicates that more than half the 

construction firms interviewed will emphasize green buildings (defined as buildings designed to 

qualify under a recognized green building rating program) in the coming years, approximately 

twice the fraction currently doing so. According to the McGraw Hill study, this trend is largely 

driven by steadily increasing market demand for green buildings, in addition to public relations 

benefits and a desire to “do the right thing.” 

Challenges related to the diversity of building types, use patterns, ownership structures, leasing 

arrangements, and other considerations can be addressed by delivering a range of solutions 

tailored to the needs of a variety of stakeholders with very different motivations. Current energy 

efficiency initiatives have not had a major impact on the industry at large, but growing interest in 

green buildings, greater trends toward disclosure requirements and stretch codes at the local 

level, and increased public support for aggressive efficiency goals from key industry associations 

such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and ASHRAE provide reasons for optimism 

(Selkowitz et al. 2008). 

NZE buildings remain a niche market, and only a handful of buildings in the United States have 

demonstrated achievement of that goal (NBI 2012). Several innovative owners and design firms 

are striving to meet the NZE target ahead of the rest of the industry, and many more have 
11 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

targeted high performance (>50% better than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 or better than ASHRAE 

Standard 189.1-2011), but challenges remain even for those early adopters. The industry will not 

pursue NZE buildings en masse until their customers demand it consistently and a sufficient 

foundation has been established that NZE can be cost effective and low risk (Heschong Mahone 

Group, Inc. 2012). 

3.4 Key Leverage Points

Although DOE’s new construction research and deployment activities may address a wide 

variety of stakeholders, it is important to begin by targeting a few key audiences that drive and 

influence transformation in the commercial buildings market. Stakeholders emphasized the 

importance of ongoing engagement with the following six audiences: 

• Building owners 

• Real estate developers

• Design professionals 

• Corporate executives 

• Building operators

• Financial institutions.

A number of key collaborators can be consulted and leveraged to reach these target audiences. 

Stakeholders mentioned the following collaborators most often: 

• Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)

• Organizations focused on high performance buildings, such as New Buildings Institute 

(NBI), Alliance to Save Energy, and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy 

• Local governments 

• ASHRAE, AIA, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and other professional 

groups 

• Industry trade associations

• Real estate consortia

• Better Buildings Alliance (BBA)

• Regional energy collaboratives 

• State governments/National Association of State Energy Offices (NASEO)

• Code officials/International Code Council (ICC)

• Utilities.
12 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3.5 Use of Existing DOE Resources

Stakeholders identified the DOE resources with which they are most familiar and use most often. 

This information represents a small sampling of industry perspectives, and was not collected in a 

scientific manner. Nevertheless, it provides some insight into the market penetration and 

usefulness of DOE products in support of energy efficient new commercial buildings. The 

following resources were the most commonly referenced by stakeholders: 

• Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDGs) 

• Case studies

• Modeling tools (EnergyPlus, DOE-2.1E, OpenStudio, Simergy, COMFEN fenestration 

design tool, suite of windows analysis software) 

• High Performance Buildings Database 

• BBA resources (such as fact sheets and technology specifications that help ensure quality 

in the procurement process).

A variety of additional resources are available from non-DOE sources. Those resources were 

neither compiled nor analyzed as part of this project.
13 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Gap Analysis

A thorough gap analysis was conducted to identify research and deployment priorities. In 

response to these priorities, DOE may consider launching new programs or expanding existing 

programs to address underserved needs in the industry. A two-pronged approach was applied:

1. Compare the current DOE portfolio to barriers identified in existing roadmaps.

2. Solicit direct input from stakeholders about important gaps that could be addressed. 

The first approach used a bottom-up methodology. Barriers to high performance commercial 

buildings were extracted from the 21 existing roadmaps discussed in Section 2.3, and crosschecked against the publicly stated objectives of DOE programs that are relevant to commercial 

new construction. Any barrier not identified as a primary focus of any current program was 

categorized as a potential gap in the DOE portfolio.

The second approach was top down in nature. More than 50 stakeholders representing diverse 

sectors of the commercial new construction industry were asked to identify barriers DOE could 

focus on, in both the near term and long term. At times, these “gaps” represented potential new 

areas of focus for DOE. Other times, the stakeholders recommended a re-emphasis or simply a 

continuation of existing DOE programs. 

Results of the gap analysis were aggregated into nine candidate focus areas, which were then 

refined and prioritized during the stakeholder roundtable meeting held on February 21, 2013 in 

Golden, Colorado, and two subsequent webinars conducted with building owners and 

commercial real estate developers. Ultimately, the process identified five focus areas that 

became the foundation of the proposed strategies. The following sections describe the gap 

analysis results in more detail.

4.1 Results of Approach #1: Analysis of Barriers and Existing 

DOE Programs

Figure 4–1 illustrates the basic bottom-up approach to gap analysis. After DOE’s portfolio was 

characterized (Step 1), and technical and market barriers were identified (Step 2), a series of 

matrices was developed to highlight the barriers that DOE programs, tools, and resources may

not currently address as a primary focus (Step 3). 

Key barriers were extracted from 12 of the roadmaps described in Section 2.3. Similar barriers 

were aggregated or rephrased to facilitate categorization and analysis. In total, 69 unique 

barriers were identified and organized into 15 general categories. Initial filtering was performed 

to eliminate barriers outside of DOE’s core capabilities (e.g., developing state tax incentives and 

improving utility rate schedules), barriers outside the scope of this study (e.g. building codes and 

standards), and barriers that were mentioned in only one roadmap. This filtering was not 

intended to minimize the importance of such barriers, but to focus initially on areas where DOE 

could have the greatest impact. The remaining 30 high priority barriers were included in the gap 

analysis. The full list of barriers and the results of the filtering process are provided in Appendix 

B. The gap analysis revealed that most DOE programs already focus on one or more key barriers 

identified in the literature. These barriers remain important ongoing priorities for DOE and play 

key roles in the proposed strategies. Barriers in each category that were not identified as a 
14 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

primary focus of any current programs were categorized as apparent “gaps” in the DOE 

portfolio. The resulting eight gaps were then ranked based on the number of roadmaps that 

identified the underlying barrier (see Table 4–1).

Figure 4–1 Gap analysis approach #1

Table 4–1 Research and Deployment Gaps Identified Using Approach #1

4.2 Results of Approach #2: Industry Stakeholder Conversations

For the second approach to gap analysis, more than 50 key stakeholders from 32 organizations 

were engaged in candid conversations with NREL and LBNL about a variety of topics, including 

areas where DOE could focus its research funding to have the greatest impact in the new 

construction market. LBNL focused on partners in the architecture, engineering, construction, 
15 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and owner/operator (AECO) community. NREL gathered similar information from utilities, 

state governments, industry associations, regional energy associations, building owners, and real 

estate developers. The following diverse organizations participated in the direct stakeholder 

conversations: 

• Architectural firms

o CO Architects

o DLR Group

o FXFowle

o Gensler

o HOK

o Payette

o SERA Architects

o Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP 

o The ABO Group, Inc. 

• Engineering firms 

o Affiliated Engineers Inc.

o Arup 

o Atelier Ten

o Buro Happold 

o Integral Group

o JB&B

o Vanderweil Engineers

• Commercial building owners and developers 

o Gundersen Lutheran Health System 

o Hines

o MD Anderson Cancer Center

o New York Presbyterian Hospital

o Target

• Utilities

o Sacramento Municipal Utility District

• Construction companies 

o Skanska 

o Webcor Builders 
16 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Non-profits

o Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

o Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. 

• Universities

o University of Washington Integrated Design Lab

• Manufacturers

o Trane Ingersoll Rand 

• Government agencies 

o U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)

• Other industry experts 

o Building Design + Construction 

o E Source.

The interviews led to interesting discussions, observations, and gap identifications pertaining to 

different stages in the design and construction process. Participants expressed a range of views, 

but many consistent themes emerged, resulting in the set of potential gaps listed in Table 4–2. 
17 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 4–2 Perceived Research and Deployment Gaps Identified through Stakeholder 

Conversations (Approach #2)

4.3 Stakeholder Roundtable and Webinars

Additional group discussion was required to prioritize and refine the preliminary set of gaps 

based on their importance to the commercial market, their alignment with DOE’s mission, and 

the extent to which they have already been addressed by resources from past DOE programs or 

from outside DOE. These steps, in addition to gathering feedback and overall insight, were the 

focus of the stakeholder roundtable meeting held at NREL in Golden, Colorado, on February 21, 

2013. 
18 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

A diverse group of 23 commercial building stakeholders participated in the roundtable, including 

representatives from:

• Architectural firms

o DLR Group

o HOK

o SERA Architects

o Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP 

• Engineering firms 

o Arup 

o Buro Happold 

o Integral Group

o RNL Design

o Vanderweil Engineers

• Building owners and developers 

o Target

• Utilities

o Pacific Gas & Electric

o Sacramento Municipal Utility District

o Xcel Energy

• Construction companies 

o Webcor Builders 

• Non-profits

o Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

o PECI

o U.S. Green Building Council 

• Universities

o University of Washington College of Built Environments 

• Manufacturers

o Trane Commercial Systems

• Government agencies

o GSA

o National Aeronautics and Space Administration
19 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

o Colorado Energy Office 

o City of Westminster.

NREL also hosted two webinars in late February 2013 with commercial building owners, 

tenants, and real estate developers who, because of scheduling conflicts, were not represented at 

the roundtable. As these are some of the most important audiences in the new construction 

industry, it was vital to include their input before finalizing the list of high priority focus areas. 

Seven organizations were represented from the following categories: 

• Commercial building owners and owner’s representatives 

o Fitzmartin Consulting

o MD Anderson Cancer Center 

o New York Presbyterian Hospital 

o Target 

• Tenants 

o Whole Foods 

• Real estate developers

o Hines 

o Prologis. 

NREL and LBNL asked participants in the roundtable meeting and the webinars to identify 

several high priority focus areas where they felt DOE could most effectively accelerate progress 

toward NZE buildings in the near and long terms. Participants were also asked to identify 

potential partner organizations as well as possible near- and long-term strategies for each focus 

area. The results of the roundtable meeting and the two webinars were important considerations 

for NREL and LBNL as the activities proposed in Section 5.0 were developed. 

After considering all stakeholder input, five key focus areas were identified as the framework for 

the proposed research and deployment efforts described in Section 5: 

1. Energy benchmark data. System- and whole building-level energy benchmark data, 

organized by building type and climate, which can be used to set performance targets for 

new buildings 

2. Enhanced modeling tools. Improved modeling tools to support financial decisionmaking, whole-building design, analysis of new technologies, model calibration, and 

identification of operational and behavioral influences on energy use throughout the 

building life cycle

3. Better cost data. Objective, vetted average component- and system-level cost data for 

analysis of return on investment 

4. Commissioning and operational strategies. Effective commissioning and operational 

methods, technologies, and tools, demonstrated through case studies
20 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5. Integrated resources. Integrated resources that present new construction case studies, 

best practice guides, datasets, and tools in a more accessible, adaptable, and user-friendly 

format.
21 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Recommendations

This section describes recommendations for DOE’s research and deployment programs related to 

new commercial buildings. The proposed activities are designed to have the greatest long-term 

impact on the market. All recommendations, including goals, definitions, priority research areas, 

and key collaborators reflect the opinions of the authors based on inputs from stakeholders, a 

review of the literature, and the authors’ own experience and expertise in commercial building 

energy efficiency research and market deployment. Before possible adoption by DOE, 

recommendations must be further reviewed and aligned with federal priorities, policy objectives, 

funding priorities, and roles and responsibilities within CBI, BTO, and other DOE programs. 

5.1 Program Goals

The recommended long-term energy efficiency goal for new commercial buildings is to achieve 

significant market penetration of cost-effective NZE buildings in all building sectors and climates 

by 2030. This goal would be aligned with EISA requirements, which call for the nation to 

realize economically viable NZE buildings in new commercial construction by 2030, in half the 

commercial building stock by 2040, and for all commercial 

buildings by 2050. The authors recognize that economic 

viability may not require adherence to strict costeffectiveness metrics based on energy savings, because 

energy efficiency can offer many non-energy benefits that 

may contribute to the building owner’s mission, such as 

health, safety, comfort, and good will. However, because 

these benefits are very difficult to quantify monetarily, they 

are not explicitly included in the determination of economic viability. 

Even though the recommended goal is based on NZE, the proposed research and deployment 

solutions focus on NZER, which is the energy efficiency component of NZE, and on high 

performance buildings spanning the range from code minimum to NZER. Definitions of NZE 

and NZER are discussed further in Section 5.2. 

Griffith et al. (2007) conducted an NZE technical potential study, which indicated that many 

building types (non-refrigerated warehouses, schools, standalone retail stores, and houses of 

worship, which comprise nearly 60% of commercial floor area) can achieve NZE if 50% site 

energy savings are achieved (compared with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004). The study 

indicated that an additional set of building types (office, public assembly, service, public order 

and safety, outpatient healthcare, and refrigerated warehouse, which comprise more than 25% of 

the remaining commercial floor area, summing to nearly 85% of the floor area in total) could 

achieve NZE if 67% site energy savings are achieved. These efficiency levels are aggressive but 

achievable, as documented through modeling and case studies in the 50% AEDGs 

(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/aedg.html). 

Although the recommended long-term goal is NZE commercial buildings, intermediate goals 

could be necessary to have a broader impact in the near term (0–3 years), and to track progress 

toward the long-term goal. These intermediate goals may be different for each of the 16 

generally recognized climate zones in the United States (see Figure 5–1), and additional analysis 

may be required to fully understand the challenges associated with achieving NZE buildings of 

New Construction 

Long-Term Goal

Significant market penetration

of cost-effective NZE buildings 

in all commercial building 

sectors and climates by 2030. 
22 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

each type in certain climate zones. Although the timeline for certain building types may call for

a long-term approach, a few near-term, high profile demonstration projects for these building 

types could raise interest in the marketplace and drive the overall movement. An NBI study 

documents the characteristics of 60 examples of NZE and “NZE capable” buildings, primarily 

office and educational buildings, along with financial data and lessons learned (NBI 2012). 

Section 5.3 provides further discussion of proposed timelines for intermediate goals.

Figure 5–1 United States climate zones used in ASHRAE 90.1 (Briggs et al. 2003)

5.2 Definitions

There is considerable debate in the industry about the best definitions of NZE and NZER. 

Although this report does not aim to settle the debate, a clear definition of NZER was deemed 

necessary by the authors to allow quantitative EUI targets that could be used to track progress 

toward recommended program goals and demonstrate achievement of those goals. The 

following definitions were developed by the authors (NREL and LBNL) after considering all of 

the input from stakeholders, and are recommended for the purpose of setting and tracking goals 

for new commercial buildings: 

• NZER: A building that includes all efficiency measures that are more cost effective than 

renewable energy

• NZE: A building that generates as much source energy using renewable energy sources 

as it consumes on an annual basis, and complies with one or more of the class definitions 

in Pless and Torcellini (2010) 
23 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Cost-effective NZE: A building meeting the definition of NZE with a life cycle cost less 

than a similar building constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of

ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 

Different NZE definitions may be appropriate in certain circumstances, depending on the project 

goals and the values of the design team and building owner. As documented and discussed by 

Torcellini et al. (2006), four commonly used accounting methods are net-zero site energy, netzero source energy, net-zero energy costs, and net-zero energy emissions. Each definition uses 

the grid for net use accounting but has different applicable renewable energy sources. 

• Net-zero site energy: A site NZE building produces at least as much renewable energy 

as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the site.

• Net-zero source energy: A source NZE building produces (or purchases) at least as 

much renewable energy as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the source. Source 

energy refers to the primary energy used to extract, process, generate, and deliver the 

energy to the site. To calculate a building’s total source energy, imported and exported 

energy is multiplied by the appropriate site-to-source conversion multipliers based on the 

utility’s source energy type. This definition is recommended as the basis for calculating 

EUIs consistent with NZER performance.

• Net-zero energy costs: In a cost NZE building, the amount of money the utility pays the 

building owner for the renewable energy the building exports to the grid is at least equal 

to the amount the owner pays the utility for the energy services and energy used over the 

year.

• Net-zero emissions: A net-zero emissions building 

produces (or purchases) enough emissions-free 

renewable energy annually to offset emissions 

(commonly carbon, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur 

oxides) from all energy used in the building. To 

calculate a building’s total emissions, imported and 

exported energy is multiplied by the appropriate 

emission multipliers based on the utility’s emissions 

and on-site generation emissions (if there are any).

Although NZE is fairly straightforward to understand and 

demonstrate for individual projects, NZER can be quite a 

difficult target to verify. Therefore, it could be valuable to 

establish a series of specific EUI targets that can be used by 

industry to set goals and verify performance. Each EUI 

target would correspond to the NZER point on the optimal 

life cycle cost curve for a typical example of the relevant 

building type (see Figure 5–3). The life cycle cost curve 

defines the most cost-effective efficiency package at each 

level of energy savings. This curve may vary significantly depending on the building type and 

climate region, and can also be influenced by operating hours, HVAC system type, level of 

occupancy, and other variables. The EUI targets would include all energy uses in the building, 

Use of Source Energy 

Metrics

Energy use is quantified 

throughout this report in terms 

of source energy, because it 

reflects the total energy use 

associated with a building, 

including generation, 

distribution, and transmission 

losses. As solution paths are 

explored in detail at the 

individual project level, it is 

important that the resulting 

market-facing products use 

metrics for energy use that 

reflect the needs and 

workflows of the intended 

audiences.
24 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

including miscellaneous electric loads. EUI targets may change over time, and changes in 

technology, measure costs, and energy prices may be revisited as necessary to determine if lower 

EUI targets are justified. Definitions recommended by the authors for the terminology used in 

Figure 5–2 are provided below:

• Total life cycle cost (TLCC). The discounted total cost associated with utility bills, 

energy efficiency measures, operations and maintenance (O&M) of energy systems, and 

other energy-related costs over a selected project analysis period (usually 20–30 years).

o Inputs. Analysis period, discount rate, measure costs, measure lifetimes

o Incorporates. Capital costs, O&M costs, energy costs, replacement and salvage 

costs, tax implications, impact on resale value. 

• Optimal life cycle cost curve. A series of points, approximated by a curve, representing 

packages that achieve a specific level of energy savings at the lowest TLCC

• Baseline. A fixed building design that complies with the minimum requirements of 

ASHRAE 90.1-2010 

• Cost minimum. An efficiency package that minimizes TLCC; maximum return on 

investment 

• Cost neutral. An efficiency package with the same TLCC as the baseline; maximum 

efficiency level that can be achieved cost effectively

• NZER. An efficiency package that includes all efficiency measures that are more cost 

effective than renewable energy 

• NZE. Adding renewable energy generation to an NZER efficiency package as needed to 

achieve net-zero source energy use on an annual basis.

Figure 5–2 NZE and NZER in context of optimal life cycle cost curve
25 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Based on these definitions, cost-effective NZE would be achieved for a particular building when 

the EUI associated with NZER is met and the TLCC of the NZE package falls below the cost 

neutral line. Improvements in energy efficiency technology and reductions in the cost of energy 

efficiency measures (and renewable energy generation) will gradually shift the optimal curve 

downward, ultimately leading to NZE buildings with lower life cycle costs than similar baseline

buildings that comply with the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (see 

Figure 5–3). Because cost reductions and technology improvements may also affect the TLCC 

of the baseline, all points in Figure 5–3 are interpreted relative to a baseline with fixed EUI but 

variable TLCC. 

Figure 5–3 Achieving cost-effective NZE buildings

The proposed NZER definition would be compatible with the NZE framework previously 

recommended by NREL, including the NZE building definition system developed by Torcellini 

et al. (2006) and the classification grading system proposed by Pless et al. (2011). It would also 

provide complete flexibility with respect to renewable generation technology selection. NZER 

defines a state of energy efficiency; as such, it is likely to be compatible with all definitions and 

classifications of NZE performance. 

While the proposed definition addresses the concept of NZER at the single building scale, it 

could apply equally well to projects of any scale. At the community or microgrid scale, NZER 

efficiency packages may contain measures that are not applicable to the single building scale, 

such as district-level heating, cooling, and energy recovery strategies. Additionally, communityscale projects may be able to take advantage of economies of scale associated with the 

implementation of renewable energy generation. Regardless of the types of measures that 

comprise the NZER efficiency package or the price of renewable energy generation that defines 

cost effectiveness, the spirit of the NZER definitions would remain the same: reduce project EUI 

to the point that renewable energy generation is the most cost-effective strategy remaining, 

whether it be at the building, community, or microgrid scale. 
26 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.3 Overall Strategy

This report emphasizes solutions that are likely to accelerate the decision to act, the learning 

curve, and the adoption curve for the energy efficiency component of NZE buildings. A broadbased approach is emphasized, balancing innovation, technology, policy, market, strategic 

deployment, and economic considerations. Highly motivated and knowledgeable owners will 

likely be the early adopters, influencing the pace of awareness and acceptance; other owners may

require additional information or incentives before deciding to act. Lessons learned from the 

successes and failures of early adopters can be communicated to reach hesitant or risk-averse 

audiences.

The proposed strategy for achieving the long-term goal of cost-effective NZER buildings by 

2030 focuses on three stages of the market transformation process: (1) development, (2) 

demonstration, and (3) deployment. A logical progression through each stage for each building 

type and climate combination may steadily increase the scale of NZER from single buildings, to 

portfolios and neighborhoods, and eventually to broad market penetration. Completion of each 

stage can be validated using a stage-gate process with specific metrics and go/no-go decision 

points. Before advancing to the next stage, a sufficient number of projects may be required to 

demonstrate that key principles and best practices are well understood and ready for broader 

application. There are likely to be some areas of overlap between stages, because the diversity of 

buildings in each sector may present unique opportunities to initiate early deployment for certain 

niche markets, while other situations are likely to present residual technical challenges where 

further research or technology demonstration is required. The stage-gate process recommended

for a possible large-scale integrated new construction initiative is summarized in Figure 5–4. 

Figure 5–4 Recommended new construction stage-gate criteria 
27 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The stage-gate process could be conducted for each of the 16 commercial building types defined 

in CBECS. Certain building types, such as warehouses, may be ready for deployment 

immediately; others may require several years of effort to develop lower cost measures and 

improved technical approaches before NZER can be achieved on a large scale. Figure 5–5

illustrates possible timelines for three building types, each beginning at a different stage on the 

path to deployment. Detailed timelines for all building types could be an early priority, and is 

likely to be a prerequisite to establishing realistic intermediate goals. Finer resolution may be 

added in recognition of unique challenges in certain climate regions and for smaller buildings. 

Conversely, there may be enough commonalities and synergies between certain building types 

that they can be grouped into fewer parallel stage-gate paths. The following preliminary 

breakdown of key building types in each category provides a starting point for discussion: 

• Building Type A. Warehouse, Education, Retail 

• Building Type B. Office/Professional, Food Sales, Assembly, Lodging 

• Building Type C. Food Service, Healthcare 

Figure 5–5 Example stage-gate timelines for different commercial building types

A proposed classification system was developed for organizing recommended solutions in each 

focus area:

• Inspirational. Stimulate positive attitudes and instill greater confidence in the 

achievability of NZE buildings. 
28 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Motivational. Catalyze action by proving the practicality and cost effectiveness of NZE, 

and identify opportunities for better financial returns through incentives, labeling, or 

more accurate valuation methods.

• Procedural. Guide members of the project delivery team through all phases of the 

process, ensuring through proper planning, communication, and integration that goals are 

achieved.

• Practical. Provide data, tools, and educational resources that support detailed analysis 

and decision-making on the front lines of design, construction, and operations. 

Example products and resources in each class are presented in Figure 5–6. 

Figure 5–6 Proposed classification system for new construction solutions

Certain classes are likely to be more impactful than others, depending on the construction stage. 

For example, inspirational measures can stimulate the initial decision to act, but are not likely to 

affect the ability of facility managers to effectively operate NZER buildings. Similarly, practical 

solutions, such as better cost data, may be very helpful to architects and engineers, but are 

generally not needed for green building certification programs. The projected impact of each 

solution class is summarized in Figure 5–7. 
29 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 5–7 Projected impacts of solution classes at various construction stages

In accordance with this general strategy, the following five sections present critical needs, key 

collaborators, possible solutions, and approximate timelines for each of the key focus areas 

presented at the end Section 4. 

1. Energy benchmark data. 

2. Enhanced modeling tools. 

3. Better cost data. 

4. Commissioning and operational strategies. 

5. Integrated resources. 

5.4 Focus Area #1: Energy Benchmark Data

End use- and whole building-level energy benchmark data are necessary for setting realistic yet 

aggressive performance targets for new buildings of various types in different climates. Energy 

benchmarks also serve as standard points for goal setting by market actors such as owners, 

designers, and operators. Benchmark cost information is also valuable for many purposes in the 

early design phase; this topic is addressed in Section 5.7. 

5.4.1 Critical Needs

EUI targets for higher performing new buildings, including NZER, have not been established in 

a standardized manner. A large-scale effort may be necessary to categorize and quantify the 

energy use of best-in-class new commercial buildings and their major end uses to establish 

aggressive long-term energy use targets that define a path to NZER. These energy benchmark 

data can be organized by building type and climate, two key drivers of energy use in new 

commercial buildings. Although a significant amount of data are available from CBECS, 

Portfolio Manager, the Buildings Performance Database, and other sources, these datasets are 

either weighted toward older buildings or include a large amount of voluntary data, which may 

have self-selection bias. ENERGY STAR recognizes new buildings that perform in the top 25% 

of the existing building stock based on CBECS data, and Target Finder is a valuable tool for 
30 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

identifying the EUI corresponding to the ENERGY STAR performance level of a new building 

or to a certain percentile of the CBECS dataset. The DOE Buildings Performance Database is a 

new resource with a rapidly growing dataset with extensive filtering capabilities, but does not yet 

have sufficient data for establishing robust benchmark values across a broad range of building 

types and climates. 

Standard adjustment factors may be needed to account for building size, market, occupant 

activities and density, hours of operation, and other drivers such as year of construction (for 

possible application of the benchmarks to existing buildings). The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has already developed adjustment factors for Portfolio Manager, but 

some effort may be required to adapt them to new construction and to derive system-level 

adjustment factors. These adjustments can help to account for the variability from one building 

to the next, allowing higher statistical significance with smaller sample sizes. New metrics may 

be needed to normalize energy use in ways that better align with design and construction 

workflows. 

Figure 5–8 links each need with its core audience and identifies the design and construction 

stages that could benefit most if it is successfully addressed.

Figure 5–8 Linking critical energy benchmarking needs to audience and impact
31 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.4.2 Strategic Approach

Energy use benchmarks for new commercial buildings could be developed across four 

dimensions (see Figure 5–9). Benchmarks ranging from code minimum to best-in-class 

performance can provide practical reference points for setting a wide range of energy efficiency 

targets for new buildings. Each building sector may need to be addressed separately because of 

large inherent disparities in energy use related to equipment loads, operating hours, occupancy 

levels, and building size. Benchmarks will be most valuable to decision makers when they are 

expressed in terms of EUI, broken down by end use. Year of construction may be another 

important variable to track for the purpose of analyzing trends in the performance of new 

buildings over time, and the persistence of energy performance as new buildings begin to age. 

Figure 5–9 Dimensions of energy benchmark data needed for effective target setting

In the near term, detailed benchmark data may be calculated through numerous energy 

simulations, incorporating different sets of high performance strategies, validated using 

performance data for newer buildings from CBECS, the California Commercial End-Use Survey, 

the Building Performance Database, and other voluntary datasets. The emphasis would be on 

new construction, but benchmarks for older buildings would be useful for analyzing trends. 

Benchmarks could be established for whole buildings and major end uses. The DOE national 

laboratories can leverage possible enhanced modeling tool solutions discussed in Section 5.5, 

along with supercomputing capabilities and expertise in high performance building design, to 

complete this activity in an objective, comprehensive manner. 

Passivhaus standards can be a useful reference point for certain end uses, including heating and 

ventilation. Although these standards are most often applied to residential buildings, their 

application to commercial buildings has expanded in recent years. 

In the long term, benchmarks can be solidified using actual building data reported through 

voluntary and mandatory collection methods, including utility bill aggregation and energy use 

disclosure laws. Inexpensive M&V protocols for collecting system-level data can be developed, 

including better methods for monitoring natural gas use for boilers, furnaces, water heaters, and 

cooking equipment. Improved methods for automated weather normalization could be 

developed so data from different time periods can be aggregated more efficiently.

There are many synergies, and some important differences, between benchmarking approaches 

for existing buildings and new buildings. Tools such as Portfolio Manager and Target Finder are 

valuable for identifying poorly performing buildings that are good candidates for retrofits, and 
32 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

helping building owners set energy performance targets for those buildings based on a large set 

of existing buildings with similar characteristics. These tools are less useful for discerning 

challenging design targets for high performance new buildings. Energy data for recently 

constructed buildings and older buildings that have been retrofitted for high performance would 

be helpful for developing new construction benchmarks, but such data are limited and a special 

effort would be required to collect more detailed data for new buildings through enhanced M&V 

procedures and data disclosure requirements. Portfolio Manager and Target Finder will likely 

continue to be the vehicles that building owners use to set targets, but the power of those tools 

can be enhanced by expanding the datasets for high performance new buildings. 

Existing metrics could be re-examined to determine their relevance and practicality for setting 

performance targets and evaluating achievement of those targets. The metrics most likely to be 

relevant to building owners include those listed in Table 5–1. Many other metrics reflect life 

cycle energy use or societal impacts, such as Time Dependent Valuation (PG&E 2012), which is 

used by the State of California to address the impact of energy use on utilities. A few of these 

societal metrics are listed in Table 5–2. Key metrics can be standardized, and all organizations 

involved in data collection can be encouraged to report data in the same format so data from 

many sources can be aggregated. DOE’s Building Energy Data Exchange Specification 

(BEDES) supports efforts to standardize energy data fields to improve the consistency of data 

collection, analysis, and reporting. 

Table 5–1 Energy Performance Metrics Commonly Used by Building Owners 
33 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5–2 Energy Performance Metrics That Reflect Societal Impacts

Simulation-based energy benchmarks, corroborated by available measured data from best-inclass high performance buildings, can be used to set national targets for all building types in all 

climates, ultimately leading to NZE. The benchmarks may also serve to complement or enhance 

current rating systems, allowing owners to promote the efficiency of their buildings and recoup 

the value of efficiency investments if the building is sold. Eventually the benchmarks could also 

support ENERGY STAR ratings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 

certification, and possible Passivhaus specifications for commercial buildings. Federal, state, 

and local governments can be encouraged to lead the way in adopting these benchmarks as 

formal energy targets, and progressive professional organizations such as AIA and ASHRAE 

may be among the first to endorse them. Best practices for tracking progress toward achieving 

energy performance targets throughout the construction and operations processes could be 

developed to ensure that actual performance is consistent with design intent (see Section 5.7).

Solutions may be pursued in all four classifications (Table 5–3).

Table 5–3 Classification of Proposed Solutions to Energy Benchmarking Challenges
34 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.4.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs

DOE has several programs that can be leveraged and expanded to produce the solutions 

described in the preceding section:

The Commercial Reference Building models 

(www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/ref_buildings.html) or the Commercial Prototype 

Building Models (www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/90.1_models) developed by 

DOE could serve as the base models for developing analytical benchmarks in the near term. 

Modifications could be necessary to capture the effects of building size; geometry, occupancy 

patterns; alternative heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and other key 

energy use drivers. Benchmark energy use data have already been developed based on the 

Commercial Reference Buildings in support of the 30% and 50% AEDGs. The AEDG

benchmarks are based on modeling of hypothetical buildings instead of measured data from real 

buildings, but they can provide a good starting point. 

DOE’s EIA is responsible for implementing CBECS. EIA may consider adding data qualifiers 

to the survey to better identify high performance buildings, and allow more detailed statistical 

analysis of the energy use drivers. However, CBECS does not include enough new buildings to 

establish statistically significant benchmarks by building type and climate. Because the cost of 

conducting each CBECS is high, EIA will probably be unable to survey larger sample sizes, but 

a larger fraction of new buildings may be possible. 

The Better Buildings Initiative, including the BBA, has great interest in ongoing tracking of 

commercial building energy performance, and could help to coordinate any benchmarking 

efforts. This could ensure the resulting data are useful to all relevant DOE programs, including 

those that address existing buildings.

DOE is an active partner in the Global Superior Energy Performance (GSEP) Partnership, which 

contributes to standardization and best practices in energy measurement and tracking protocols. 

This program can assist with means and methods for measuring and reporting energy use in a 

consistent manner.

Federal buildings will probably be among the first to adopt NZER benchmark values as targets 

for all new construction, although other groups may be targeted as well. BTO and FEMP could 

work in partnership to facilitate and support adoption of the benchmarks as the basis for target 

setting in federal buildings of all types.

The platform for final data collection could be integrated with existing DOE databases such as 

the Buildings Performance Database, the High Performance Buildings Database, the Life Cycle 

Inventory Database, the Standard Energy Efficiency Data (SEED) Platform, and the Technology 

Portal. DOE has also created a Zero Energy Buildings Database (zeb.buildinggreen.com/), 

including details of design features and energy use, that is part of the High Performance 

Buildings Database. 

5.4.4 Potential Collaborators

Many collaborators could be needed to successfully establish meaningful energy benchmarks for 

high performance commercial buildings, and several key industry groups can stimulate 
35 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

benchmarking efforts for certain market sectors. An illustrative list of potential collaborators is 

provided in Table 5–4. 

Table 5–4 Potential Key Collaborators for Energy Benchmark Data Solutions

Many additional collaborators are likely to make important contributions to various phases of 

national efforts to improve the quality and depth of energy benchmarking data for new 

commercial buildings:
36 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Institute for Real Estate Management

• NAIOP (also known as the Commercial Real Estate Development Association)

• Passive House Institute U.S.

• Universities

• Private sector benchmarking tool developers. 

5.4.5 Solution Timeline

Figure 5–10 presents the proposed benchmarking solution timeline, which characterizes 

solutions as short term (0–3 years), medium term (3–6 years), or long term (6–15 years), and 

identifies relationships between solutions.

Figure 5–10 Proposed energy benchmark data solution timeline

5.5 Focus Area #2: Enhanced Modeling Tools

Enhanced modeling capabilities may be needed to support financial decision-making, wholebuilding design, analysis of new technologies, and operational and behavioral influences on 

energy use throughout the building life cycle. Energy modeling tools also could more effectively 

integrate with building information modeling and other building performance analysis tools to 

enable timely analysis of energy- and nonenergy-related parameters. Modeling tools and data 

could be extended to the financial decision-making, value engineering, construction, and 

commissioning processes and then used in ongoing building operations and M&V. This may be 

particularly important as buildings adopt more sophisticated integrated systems and controls to 

achieve higher performance levels and integrate renewable energy systems. Modeling can be 

especially challenging for small buildings because the design budget can be very limited and 

complex tools are impractical.
37 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.5.1 Critical Needs

Challenges related to energy modeling can be especially difficult to overcome when NZER 

performance is targeted. A whole-building design process is required, along with consideration 

of a broader range of efficiency options, including new technologies that are often incompatible 

with the inputs allowed by current tools. Measure-by-measure analysis could be replaced by 

more complex yet rapid optimization techniques without sacrificing accuracy or ease of use. 

Modeling tools may begin to provide a range of savings with probability or uncertainty margins 

that reflect the wide range of possible use patterns and building loads once the building is 

occupied. Advanced lighting systems, plug loads, and specialized equipment and systems are 

particularly difficult to model accurately using current tools. Easier-to-use modeling tools may 

be needed during the early design stages to narrow the set of options, transitioning to more 

sophisticated tools for detailed design. Methods for adjusting models based on actual operating 

parameters and occupant behavior are also helpful to better understand discrepancies between 

modeled and actual performance. Better predictive modeling capabilities can help facility 

managers adjust building operations based on weather conditions and expected use patterns to 

achieve optimal performance while maintaining occupant comfort and meeting other functional 

needs of the building. Modeling tools must be able to import actual energy consumption data 

and automatically determine whether a building complies with common code requirements. 

Highly simplified methods could allow small building owners and contractors to reduce 

transaction costs and bypass detailed modeling altogether. 

Figure 5–11 links each need with its core audience and identifies the design and construction 

stages that would benefit most if it is successfully addressed. 

Figure 5–11 Linking critical energy modeling needs to audience and impact
38 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.5.2 Strategic Approach

BTO’s ET Program pursues advancements in the capabilities, speed, and accuracy of building 

energy modeling engines, but CBI can support, inform, and enhance those efforts in several ways 

(see Figure 5–12).

Figure 5–12 Four categories of CBI support for modeling tool engines 

developed by the BTO ET program

• Better design input data. Standardized input data for building energy models could be 

developed in consultation with industry to improve the usefulness of modeling tools 

during early design. As discussed in Section 5.6, cost data can be collected from a 

number of sources; these data can be packaged into a standard set of libraries that can be 

included with tools such as OpenStudio, COMFEN (commercial building fenestration 

design tool), and Simergy. Cost data are helpful for early design tradeoffs and later for 

detailed optimization analysis. Most users would value the ability to replace standard 

cost data with their own actual costs based on vendor quotes or previous projects. The 

following categories of standard cost data could be addressed:

o First cost (purchase, installation, commissioning)

o O&M costs

o M&V costs

o Replacement costs

o Soft costs (design, vendor selection). 
39 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Modeling accuracy can be enhanced and more confidence can be gained in performance 

predictions of new technologies through controlled laboratory and field testing of energy 

using equipment and key integrated building systems. An iterative process is often 

needed between modeling and testing to ensure that modeling algorithms include all 

relevant inputs and produce realistic outputs. Building system evaluations under realistic 

conditions present ongoing challenges as new technologies and integrated systems are 

developed, because test equipment and test bed costs are high, and evolving building 

equipment designs can make previous test results (and even test methods) obsolete. 

Thus, such testing may be performed by a variety of partners depending on the situation, 

including equipment manufacturers, building owners, national laboratories, and other 

partners. AHRI and the DOE’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program could be 

key partners for improving standard test procedures for mechanical and electrical 

equipment, and ASTM is the leader in standard test methods for building envelope 

components. 

DOE has test bed facilities under development that can provide enhanced capabilities for 

assessing these systems beyond standard test requirements. Installed equipment 

performance often needs to be measured under a range of operating conditions to predict 

its long-term energy use. This is especially true of specialized equipment used in 

restaurants, healthcare facilities, and laboratories. Part-load performance of common 

HVAC equipment can also be measured under a variety of conditions to improve the 

default performance curves in energy models. 

A study of occupant behavior (e.g., use of shading, thermostats, office equipment) and 

maintenance practices could be conducted to better understand the statistical distribution 

of operating conditions that buildings are likely to experience, and how those behaviors 

influence energy use. This information would allow modeling tools to better quantify the 

uncertainty in energy savings predictions caused by occupant interactions with buildings. 

Analysis of occupant behavior is also valuable for developing accurate predictive 

modeling capabilities. This activity is strongly connected to the need for understanding 

and characterizing operational deficiencies described in Section 5.7, and could be 

performed as part of a single, coordinated effort.

• Model validation through measurement. The performance of new technologies in 

actual buildings is often affected by unexpected interactions between systems and 

occupants. Promising new systems and products can be continually evaluated through 

direct measurements in actual buildings and in test beds. The results would inform the 

mathematical algorithms used in energy models to ensure realistic predictions of energy 

savings for new and innovative efficiency measures soon after they become available. 

Complex system interactions can be studied in actual buildings to help validate and 

improve modeling algorithms related to daylighting, building control systems, 

refrigeration systems, ground coupling, ventilation, and infiltration. Field test data are 

also valuable for developing predictive modeling capabilities and practical model 

calibration techniques. Field evaluation of high performance buildings has long been a 

high priority for building scientists, and its importance will continue to grow as more 

buildings approach NZER.
40 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Enhanced capability to automatically adjust building models in real time based on actual 

building performance, operations, and weather conditions could be developed. This 

would allow predictive modeling that can help operators anticipate high peak demand 

periods, opportunities for free heating or cooling, or imminent equipment failures, and 

take appropriate action. In addition, automated model calibration during the construction, 

commissioning, and post-occupancy stages can help ensure that design targets are met in 

practice. Modeling-supported building-level fault detection could be developed to 

determine when actual building performance deviates beyond the range predicted by 

simulations, facilitating prompt action to correct the situation and minimize energy waste. 

Similar work proposed in Section 5.7 could be leveraged and coordinated as a single 

integrated effort.

• Prepackaged design solutions. In general, the design budgets for smaller buildings 

cannot support detailed modeling and design tradeoff analysis. For these situations, a 

large number of simulations can be run across a wide range of building types and 

climates, leveraging the supercomputing capabilities and expert modeling skills available 

at DOE’s national laboratories. Results can be tabulated and regression analysis can be 

performed on the data to develop relatively simple energy use estimations based on very 

few input parameters. A Web-based interface can be developed to allow simple, 

straightforward analysis of energy efficiency options, while achieving most of the 

accuracy of an expensive whole-building model. A variety of standard design packages 

can be produced based on building type, efficiency target, climate, HVAC system type, 

and use patterns. These prepackaged design solutions could benefit small building 

owners and designers who want to achieve aggressive energy savings targets, including 

NZER, but do not have the resources to perform detailed, iterative design tradeoffs. 

• User interfaces. There is still a strong need for better graphical user interfaces to enable 

various categories of designers to use the EnergyPlus analysis engine at different stages 

in the building life cycle. Some graphical user interfaces for EnergyPlus are available; 

however, their real or perceived limitations have made widespread uptake challenging. 

New graphical user interfaces for EnergyPlus are scheduled for release in the near term. 

These will have increased capabilities that make the EnergyPlus engine more accessible 

to a wider range of users. In the long-term, more flexible modeling interfaces may be 

created to allow users to tailor the level of sophistication to their needs and capabilities. 

Architects, engineers, and other stakeholders could be consulted in the creation of sample 

requirement specifications geared according to the needs of their sector. 

Extensive libraries of building characteristics, costs, and equipment schedules are 

currently being developed for use during the early stages of design, enabling comparative 

analysis to inform design decisions. Improved post-processing capabilities can also be 

developed to provide simplified summary results that can be easily understood by a wide 

range of users, and a platform can be established for sharing modeling results with others 

in a standard format.

Proposed solutions in the modeling focus area are mostly procedural and practical in nature. 

These possible solutions and their projected timeframes are summarized in Table 5–5. 
41 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5–5 Classification of Possible Solutions to Modeling Tool Challenges

5.5.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs

DOE has several programs that can be leveraged and expanded to produce the solutions 

described in the preceding section:

BTO’s Emerging Technologies (ET) Program funds most of the energy modeling tool 

development work related to the core capability, accuracy, and speed of EnergyPlus. Extensive 

interactions can ensure that equipment testing, operating characteristics, and whole-building 

performance data are collected in a manner and format that allows direct integration into the 

underlying software architecture. The EnergyPlus team can help identify the inputs and 

calculations that currently have the greatest uncertainty, and that require laboratory and field 

studies to improve the predictive capabilities of the modeling software. Documentation of 

improvements to EnergyPlus could allow other software developers to incorporate similar 

upgrades to private sector modeling tools. 

OpenStudio is an open-source set of software tools designed to facilitate the use of EnergyPlus 

for building energy analysis. It is adaptable to the needs of different industry sectors, and 

enhances the abilities of users with varying levels of expertise to model buildings quickly and 

accurately. Other modeling tools such as Radiance play a significant role in enabling analysis 

and optimization of some of the more critical integrated systems (e.g., operable shading and 

daylighting at various stages in the design process). The DOE software development teams are 

responsible for enhancing existing tools and creating the optimization routines, predictive 

modeling, automated calibration, and diagnostic capabilities necessary for successful 

implementation of CBI programs that target new construction.
42 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The Commercial Buildings Partnerships (CBP) Initiative 

(www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/cbp.html) and other industry partnership 

programs provide excellent platforms for collaborating with industry to obtain detailed field test 

data and pilot new software features. The BBA member organizations could be important initial 

users of any new modeling capabilities, and can help guide improvements to the usability and 

post-processing features of DOE’s energy analysis tools.

The BTO Appliance and Equipment Standards group can help to standardize test protocols for 

equipment that will result in meaningful and objective input data to accurately model energy use 

in real buildings. Modified standards may be needed to put new technologies on a level playing 

field with more common equipment. New standards could be developed for specialized 

equipment for which standard test methods and data reporting requirements have not been 

established.

5.5.4 Potential Collaborators

A number of external collaborators can help develop and test the planned modeling tool 

improvements. Their possible roles are summarized in Table 5–6. 

Table 5–6 Potential Key Collaborators for Enhanced Modeling Tool Solutions

5.5.5 Solution Timeline

Figure 5–13 presents a possible timeline for recommended modeling tool enhancements, 

characterizing solutions as short term (0–3 years), medium term (3–6 years), or long term (6–15 

years), and identifying relationships between solutions. 
43 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 5–13 Proposed enhanced modeling tool solution timeline

5.6 Focus Area #3: Better Cost Data

Cost data are critical to all phases of commercial building design and construction. Conventional 

design and construction costs are highly variable; there is an overall need for cost data analysis 

methods that can support consistency in cost estimation and improved methods for managing 

costs during the design and construction process. Better cost data may be needed to: 

• Make a business case for high performance design packages to help building owners and 

design teams incorporate efficiency into project budgets. 

• Inform the analysis of building system interactions and the cost and performance 

tradeoffs associated with energy efficiency technologies and strategies.

• Address the threat that value engineering poses to the implementation of energy 

efficiency technologies and strategies.

• Estimate the potential reduction in “soft costs” that can be achieved using integrated

design tools, lean construction methods, and performance based procurement. 

Better component-, system-, and whole building-level cost data and resources can help support 

these types of analysis and decision making. Modeling tools can play an important role in 

meeting this need (see Section 5.5). Better cost data and resources can greatly increase the 

potential impact of future integrated resources, such as case studies that emphasize economic 

feasibility (see Section 5.8). 

5.6.1 Critical Needs

To enable informed and timely decision making throughout design and construction across the 

commercial buildings sector, it is important for new cost data and methods to: 
44 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Facilitate early design decision making. Decision-makers and designers would benefit 

from cost data and system-level cost estimating approaches that can enable them to make 

well-informed preliminary design decisions. High level (system-level as opposed to 

component-level) cost data that holistically capture the economic impacts of design 

decisions can enable energy efficiency technologies and strategies to be evaluated early 

in the design process. First cost represents an important—but not the only—cost data 

point. Several other possible cost impacts are relevant: 

o What is the operational cost impact of an efficiency measure? 

o Will implementation of the measure allow HVAC equipment downsizing? 

o How does the measure influence peak load and demand response? 

o Will upgrades to the electrical system be required? 

o Are any building structural impacts associated with measure implementation? 

o What effect do rebates and incentives have on measure cost?

• Be statistically significant. Costs vary from project to project, often dramatically, based 

on local labor and material costs and the purchasing power of the owner or contractor. 

Accordingly, for a cost dataset to be applicable to a wide range of projects (with 

variations in building type, location, vendor agreements, etc.), it may need to contain data 

from a significant number of projects that collectively reflect the realistic variations in 

project parameters. To collect a statistically significant set of cost data for energy 

efficiency technologies and strategies, contributions from many partners will likely be 

needed. To address this need, the potential contradiction between statistical significance 

and voluntary collection presents a challenge. 

• Be standardized and validated. With this “crowd-sourcing” mechanism for cost data 

collection, data standardization and validation strategies and workflows can become 

critical. Carefully defined data collection procedures can help to standardize data format 

and content, reducing the burdens for data validation and collection to the extent possible. 

Data validation procedures can be used to filter data according to the quality of the 

source, the measurement approach, and other criteria. Because large quantities of cost 

data may be collected and validated, these procedures may need to be highly automated. 

• Be stored and maintained. Infrastructure could be developed to allow large-scale cost 

data to be collected, stored, validated, shared, applied, and maintained. The costs 

associated with building efficiency technologies and strategies are constantly changing; it 

is important for any solution to cost data collection, storage, and distribution to be 

dynamic enough to keep pace with the rate of change. Partnering with private sector 

organizations that have done significant work in the area of data storage and maintenance 

may help in a national effort to address this need.

Figure 5–14 links each need with its core audience and identifies the design and construction 

stages that would benefit most if it is successfully addressed.
45 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 5–14 Linking critical cost data needs to audience and impact

5.6.2 Strategic Approach

Compiling and managing a cost dataset that characterizes energy efficiency technologies and 

strategies completely enough to facilitate early design decision-making across the commercial 

building sector would be a serious undertaking that would be impractical for one organization to 

take on alone. An approach is recommended by which DOE might develop the infrastructure 

required to collect, store, share, validate, apply, and maintain such a dataset, and then establish 

partnerships through which the data can be collected and maintained. The recommended 

strategic approach can be defined as follows:

• Define the metrics and processes that will shape the cost dataset, and help customers 

understand how to manage cost while stimulating innovation. The ultimate goal of 

the energy efficiency technology and strategy cost dataset would likely be to facilitate 

decision-making in the early stages of building design. To this end, cost data metrics 

could be developed to allow accurate and consistent comparisons among the merits of 

potential design solutions; the resultant metrics would reflect the set of cost data 

parameters that inform early design decisions (first costs, maintenance costs, replacement 

costs, system interactions, structural implications, electrical system requirements, etc.) 

and leverage the institutional knowledge of the AECO community (practical 

considerations for implementation, design rules of thumb, order of magnitude costs, etc.). 

A preliminary assessment of industry cost data collection and application workflows 

could inform this effort. 
46 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Once cost data metrics are defined, processes could be developed to standardize and 

facilitate data collection, validation, and application. Metrics and processes would 

account for potential barriers associated with data confidentiality and disclosure, 

including the link between project-specific cost data and competitive advantage. 

Recognizing that most organizations would have limited time and resources to build and 

maintain the cost dataset, it will be important for metrics and processes to address the 

importance of reducing the near- and long-term burdens associated with data collection 

and validation. Because improving high level, early design decision-making would likely 

be the primary intended use of the dataset, cost metrics and processes may need to 

emphasize the collection of building- and system-level data. However, component-level 

cost data are still likely to play an important role in making early design decisions, 

especially with respect to equipment make and model selections.

• Build relationships with key deployment partners. Establishing partnerships to collect 

and maintain the cost dataset over the long term would be critical to the success of this 

approach. This engagement of key deployment partners (building owners, AECOs, and 

equipment manufacturers) will help ensure that the cost data is continually updated and 

vetted, leading to well-informed early design decisions across the commercial buildings 

sector.

• Develop and pilot a publicly accessible cost database. A publicly accessible cost 

database could be developed and piloted. The pilot stage could allow deployment 

partners to evaluate the metrics and workflows through which the database is accessed 

and used. Deployment partner feedback can be used to refine workflows, and ultimately, 

to decide whether it is feasible, given the established partnerships, to collect and maintain 

cost data at a scale that can improve early design decision making across the commercial 

building sector. Post-processing capabilities can be added to allow analysis of the 

average and statistical distributions of typical costs.

• Investigate alternative methods for cost analysis. First costs for energy efficiency 

technologies and strategies are dynamic and difficult to predict. A cost-targeting 

methodology could be developed that can address this issue by inverting the problem. By 

simulating the performance of a technology for a given combination of building type and 

climate zone, and overlaying that performance onto a specified economic requirement (5 

year simple payback, neutral TLCC after 10 years, etc.), a threshold cost point can be 

established for cost effectiveness. To provide context for cost-effectiveness thresholds, 

strategies for first cost collection can be used to compare the resultant thresholds to 

current industry cost ranges. The methodology can maximize the ability of designers to 

customize recommendations according to project-specific economics. Cost-effectiveness 

thresholds for energy efficiency measures can give contractors a reference point in 

negotiating with architects and subcontractors, and help move the market in the direction 

of incorporating efficiency at lower first cost.

• Identify best practices for controlling capital and management costs. Several 

industry leaders in energy efficiency have developed workflows that allow high 

performance and NZE buildings to be designed, constructed, and operated cost 

effectively; unfortunately, the expertise embodied in those workflows currently has 

limited penetration in the commercial building sector. Cost control best practice 
47 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

guidance could be developed for key industry users (building owners, architects, 

designers, energy champions, etc.) to incorporate into their everyday workflows. By 

demonstrating to the commercial new construction market how to combine advanced 

technologies, design methods, and project management approaches into an overall 

efficiency package that can be implemented at minimal incremental cost, the domain of 

NZE design and construction can be expanded from the niche market of showcase

projects to the commercial new construction mainstream. Furthermore, best practices 

associated with NZE design and construction could be applicable to the high performance 

building market in general, expanding the potential realm of impact of this project from 

the NZE buildings market to the commercial buildings sector as a whole.

Solutions may be pursued in all four classes (Table 5–7).

Table 5–7 Classification of Possible Solutions to Cost Data Challenges

5.6.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs

DOE has several programs that can be leveraged and expanded to produce the recommended 

solutions described in the preceding section: 

Database development is likely to play a key role in collecting, storing, and sharing cost data. A 

number of DOE programs can be leveraged from a database development perspective, including 

the High Performance Buildings Database, the Life Cycle Inventory Database, the SEED 

Platform, the Technology Portal, and the COMFEN tool. A key product of the SEED Platform is 

a database taxonomy. Data collection standardization (through the development of technology 

data entry forms) and “crowd-sourcing” have been explored in detail as part of the Technology 
48 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Portal program. The COMFEN project is currently working with users to improve and expand 

on the value of a façade construction cost database; considerations include crowd-sourced data 

collection. Lessons learned from these programs can inform the development of the database 

architecture, as well as the metrics and procedures that would shape the cost dataset.

As mentioned previously, establishing industry partnerships through which an impactful cost 

dataset can be compiled and maintained may be critical to the success of this strategic approach. 

DOE could leverage its industry contacts to develop the necessary partnerships. Programs such 

as CBP, the BBA, the Performance Based Value Engineering Program, the Open ADR Alliance, 

the Better Buildings Challenge, and industry partnership programs, including the High 

Performance Green Building Partnership Consortia, could prove valuable in the effort to secure 

the necessary collaborations. 

5.6.4 Potential Collaborators

Many collaborators might be necessary to successfully develop an energy efficiency technology 

and strategy cost database that can improve the early design decision-making process across 

the commercial buildings sector. Potential key collaborators and their roles are presented in 

Table 5–8. 

Table 5–8 Potential Key Collaborators for Cost Data Solutions
49 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Other potential collaborators for cost data solutions include:

• NBI

• Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

• Northeast Energy Efficiency Alliance 

• Real estate managers, large companies, and institutions 

• Financial organizations and appraisers. 

5.6.5 Solution Timeline

Figure 5–15 presents a possible cost data solution timeline, which characterizes recommended 

solutions as short term (0–3 years), medium term (3–6 years), or long term (6–15 years), and 

identifies relationships between solutions.

Figure 5–15 Proposed cost data solution timeline

5.7 Focus Area #4: Commissioning and Operational Strategies

Buildings designed for high performance often do not achieve the expected performance level 

once occupied, frequently because of insufficient or ineffective commissioning practices, 

incorrect building operations, and occupants who have not been properly educated about how to 

optimally use building features. As buildings approach NZER, more complex technologies and 

control systems could present additional challenges to building operators and occupants. A 

deliberate approach to design team-operator-occupant teaming is important for connecting design 

intent and decision-making to actual construction, building operations, and building-occupant 

interactions so that building performance can be matched with design goals, without incurring 

undue costs. 

5.7.1 Critical Needs

More effective commissioning and operational protocols can inform commissioning agents, 

building operators, facility managers, and occupants about how to verify and sustain optimal 

building performance, and these procedures can influence changes to standard industry practice. 

Operating protocols for new technologies and complicated control systems may require special 

attention. It is important for equipment installers and commissioning agents to verify that all 

components are fully functional and work together under a range of operating conditions. 

Facility managers can use similar guidance and training so they understand how to track 

performance over time and make necessary adjustments to control strategies. Building operators 
50 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

could partner with industry to develop procedures to ensure these tasks are carried out properly. 

For small building owners without dedicated facility managers, or large building owners with 

staff who are less experienced with energy-efficient building systems, these issues can be 

mitigated through robust design, building automation systems, self-diagnostics, or regular 

recommissioning by a knowledgeable professional. Enhanced fault detection for individual 

systems (ideally installed by equipment manufacturers) and whole buildings (through predictive 

modeling, as discussed in Section 5.5) could allow quick identification and correction of 

problems before a significant amount of energy is wasted. Informational resources can help

demonstrate the financial impacts of wasted energy from suboptimal building operations or 

incorrect equipment installation. Education for occupants and devices that support occupant 

engagement are especially important, both for operating major building systems and for 

controlling local lighting and plug loads. 

Figure 5–16 links each need with its core audience and identifies the design and construction 

stages that would benefit most if it is successfully addressed.

Figure 5–16 Linking critical operational needs to audience and impact
51 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.7.2 Strategic Approach

The approach for addressing these needs could focus on understanding the causes of operating 

failures, developing best practices and tools for avoiding them, designing buildings that can be 

controlled and operated according to design intent, communicating operational best practices to 

industry and occupants, and educating all project team members about the consequences of 

improper commissioning and operational practices, including negative financial impacts, comfort 

complaints, and installer callbacks. Possible approaches include the following: 

• Evaluate the primary causes of operational failures. A good start might be to evaluate 

the nature and magnitude of design, construction, commissioning, and operating failures 

that cause buildings to perform below expectations. Several studies, including the one 

conducted by Mills (2009), provide a strong foundation for determining the frequency 

and impact of common installation and operating errors. Experts from the 

commissioning and operations community can be consulted for their expertise about why 

these failures occur, and how best to address them. 

• Establish best practices for commissioning and operating high performance 

buildings. In consultation with industry experts, benefits could be quantified and best 

practices could be defined for commissioning, operating, and maintaining key subsystems 

that are frequently found in high performance buildings, but often fail to achieve the 

intended savings. These subsystems often interact with other building systems in 

complex and unexpected ways. Examples of these high priority systems follow: 

o Daylighting systems

o Demand-controlled ventilation

o Heat recovery systems

o Plug loads 

o Enthalpy-based economizers

o Variable air volume systems

o Under floor air distribution

o Staged heating and cooling 

o Dynamic shading systems 

o Integrated system performance.

In the long term, operational challenges may become even more pronounced as buildings 

approach NZER, because of more complex systems interactions and control strategies. It 

will be important for best practices to be designed to improve operational performance at 

a reasonable cost to the building owner. 

• Develop new diagnostic technologies and robust design methods, including the role 

of integrated project delivery in operational performance. ”Smart” technologies 

could be developed to dramatically improve the ease with which systems can be 

commissioned, making it faster, easier, and cheaper to set and achieve lofty building 

performance goals. Manufacturers could be supported in the development of advanced 

self-diagnostic features that alert operators when equipment performance falls below 
52 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

acceptable bounds. At the whole-building level, improvements in predictive modeling 

and building-level fault detection could help operators identify problems early and take 

corrective action (see Section 5.5).

The impacts of poor commissioning and operational practices can be mitigated through 

robust design. Design strategies could be developed that require minimal facility 

manager or occupant intervention, and that are less dependent on complex 

commissioning strategies. Examples include passive solar design, equipment with 

simpler interfaces, and more comprehensive building automation. In the right situation, 

this approach can be more cost-effective than a long term ongoing commissioning 

program to prevent or address problems. 

• Educate owners, industry, and occupants. Partnerships with organizations such as 

BOMA, the International Facility Managers Association, and others can create stronger 

training programs to help commissioning agents and facility managers understand how 

systems interact and the best approaches to ensure they operate in concert to optimize 

whole-building performance. Training curricula could also be developed for designers 

and engineers to understand how facility managers approach and operate buildings, 

which can lead to equipment choices and control strategies that are more intuitive and 

user friendly. 

For building owners, powerful evidence of the financial consequences of incorrect O&M 

could be documented. Data related to typical O&M costs and energy costs could support 

this activity to enhance credibility (see Section 5.7). Mills (2009) provides 

comprehensive data in support of careful commissioning and O&M practices, and Lee et 

al. (2013) present a convincing case study about the New York Times Building. 

Templates, best practices, and training curricula for owners and project managers could 

be developed for inclusion of effective commissioning requirements and strict energy 

performance requirements in contracts with construction companies to ensure all systems 

function as intended when the building is handed off (Pless et al. 2011). 

Innovative methods can be developed to recognize and reward facility managers who 

maximize energy savings through effective operational strategies and maintenance 

practices, including a possible national award program for especially creative and 

impactful approaches to operations management. Model incentive programs can be 

created to help owners establish criteria for evaluating and rewarding effective 

commissioning and facility management practices. 

Outreach efforts including social media, websites, fact sheets, and videos could be 

developed for different building types to educate building occupants about the features of 

high performance buildings and to communicate simple things they can do to help such 

buildings perform optimally. Guidance could cover using task lighting, controlling plug 

loads, consolidating office equipment, adjusting computer standby settings, and other 

strategies.

• Develop simpler and more innovative approaches for small buildings. Smaller 

buildings present unique challenges, because the energy cost savings may not be 

sufficient to justify large expenditures on commissioning and M&V. Simpler protocols 

can be developed that support problem identification through utility bill tracking and 

analysis, along with guidance for correcting minor operational issues without calling a 
53 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

service contractor. Benchmarking could be a key element of this approach, because 

small buildings are less likely to have energy models that establish specific performance 

expectations for the building (see Section 5.4). DOE is already developing tools such as 

the Open Energy Information System to assist efforts in this area. Many additional 

efforts to support commissioning and operational strategies in small buildings may be 

conducted as part of DOE’s new Small Buildings/Small Portfolio program. These efforts 

could be highly collaborative, involving small building owners, service providers, 

manufacturers, and utilities.

 Solutions may be pursued in all four classifications (Table 5–9).

Table 5–9 Classification of Possible Solutions to 

Commissioning and Operational Challenges

5.7.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs

DOE has several programs that can be leveraged and expanded to support the possible solutions 

described in the preceding section: 

Innovative M&V practices are central to DOE research efforts that involve monitoring and 

characterizing energy use in high performance buildings. Lessons learned from these real-world 

projects can provide essential insights into potential operational challenges and best practices for 

overcoming them. 
54 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

GSEP provides an excellent forum for establishing best practices, training curricula, and 

workforce qualifications for continuous energy management and verification. In addition, 

DOE’s ongoing performance-based procurement and performance monitoring initiatives provide 

strong guidance for ensuring that energy performance goals are supported and tracked 

throughout the construction process and after the building is occupied. 

The Residential Building Integration program has created a series of best practice documents for 

contractors, designed to improve the installed quality of energy efficiency measures. This 

guidance could be leveraged for many commercial building types, especially small commercial 

buildings with HVAC systems that are more representative of residential buildings than of large 

commercial buildings.

WIP issues grants to state energy offices and other government entities to implement innovative 

local programs that save energy. Certain minimum requirements are imposed on grantees to 

ensure that the money is well spent; these can include M&V of energy savings for all funded 

projects. Innovative approaches from grant recipients could help inform guidance and best 

practices developed by DOE to ensure that buildings perform as expected. 

5.7.4 Potential Collaborators

Several key collaborators would be needed to help develop and implement improved operational 

strategies in high performance buildings (see Table 5–10).

Table 5–10 Potential Key Collaborators for Commissioning and Operational Solutions
55 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.7.5 Solution Timeline

Figure 5–17 presents a possible commissioning and operational strategies solution timeline, 

which characterizes solutions as short term (0–3 years), medium term (3–6 years), or long term 

(6–15 years), and identifies relationships between solutions. 

 

Figure 5–17 Possible commissioning and operational strategy solution timeline

5.8 Focus Area #5: Integrated Resources

Integrated resources that present new construction guides, datasets, and tools in an accessible, 

adaptable, and user-friendly format enable users to more effectively leverage and deploy all 

available resources. It is important for such resources to be adaptable to variations in user 

groups, building types, building designs, and the needs associated with various phases of design 

and construction. 

5.8.1 Critical Needs

The commercial buildings industry stakeholders consulted for this project recognize that the 

buildings research community generates an abundance of valuable resources, but they expressed 

a need for those resources to be:

• Accessible. At a basic level, resources would be well organized and accessible from a 

centrally organized online gateway. This criterion simply addresses the question, “Where 

do I go to find the resources that will be of value to me, and in a media format that aligns 

with my workflows?” 

• Adaptable. Many new resources are produced each year; the resource gateway would 

likely need continuous maintenance to stay current and track the most valuable resources 

by focus area and audience.

• User friendly. Effective resource integration can enable potential users to readily 

determine which resources are most appropriate for their specific interests and needs. 

The volume and variety of available resources present the need for resource filtering, by a 
56 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

set of variables including topic and audience. Stakeholders have expressed the need for 

brief, high level, intuitive resource descriptions and user-friendly resource formats. For 

example, a user may be able to internalize more information from watching a 10-minute 

summary video than from reading a 100-page technical report. 

• Integrated. Resource organization and presentation are important needs, but 

consolidating and condensing them through targeted integration is also important. Such 

integration must account for the fact that media formats and methods of user engagement 

are changing. Extracting relevant information and guidance from multiple independent 

resources is much more difficult than from a single resource that integrates multiple 

resources in a cohesive, audience-appropriate way. 

Figure 5–18 links each need with its core audience and identifies the design and construction 

stages that might benefit most if it is successfully addressed.

Figure 5–18 Linking critical integrated resource needs to audience and impact

5.8.2 Strategic Approach

A two-pronged approach is recommended for improving the delivery of integrated resources: 

• Near-term approach: Integrated resource access. In the near term, resource access 

could be centralized via a research gateway that is designed to help commercial building 

audiences (owners/developers, AECOs, building occupants, etc.) more easily identify and 

locate resources that are most appropriate to their interests and needs. Users would be 

able to filter resources by intended audience, building type, and various other project 

parameters (climate, location, performance goal, building system design, budget, etc.). 

The gateway could be tracked continuously to improve and update resources and remove 

obsolete ones. Social media may be explored as a venue for users to access information, 

share successes and challenges with peers, and obtain advice from peers and industry 

experts. The data storage and access issues are not trivial; successful execution of this 

approach might require that topics such as modern search and industrial design be 
57 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

explored. Many private design firms are currently tackling these issues; accordingly, 

collaboration in the area of data management would be beneficial. 

• Long-term approach: Integrated resource development and gateway expansion. In 

the long term, complementary resources could be better integrated. This would reduce 

the need for users to extract bits and pieces from a number of disparate resources that 

may have been designed to address different audiences and their corresponding needs. A 

single resource that integrates multiple resources in a cohesive, audience-appropriate way 

is preferable to a set of independent resources; however, there may be significant barriers 

to the development of such resources. A first step to comprehensive resource integration 

might be to examine the resources being developed across DOE’s research portfolio in 

the context of information sharing and overall program integration. As new integrated 

resources are developed, the ability of case studies to engage owners, developers, and the 

AECO community can be leveraged. 

A case study that demonstrates the successful implementation of a high performance 

design package in a recognizable commercial building (not a showcase building) for a 

typical budget can have significant inspirational value. Using supporting data and 

analysis to generalize the results, and making the case study more interactive and “alive,” 

can motivate decision makers and designers and provide relevant design guidance and 

solutions for a broader range of buildings. Overall resource impact might be improved 

via this approach. As new integrated resources are developed, they can be incorporated 

into the resource gateway.

Near-term gateway design and development, and initial deployment using DOE resources 

could largely set the stage for this effort. Because the inclusion of non-DOE resources 

has the potential to greatly increase the ongoing effort required for update and 

maintenance, it would be valuable to establish workflows and partnership agreements that 

lay the groundwork for successful, sustainable expansion of the gateway. 

Solutions may be pursued in all four classifications (Table 5–11).
58 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5–11 Classification of Possible Solutions to Integrated Resource Challenges

5.8.3 Role of Existing DOE Programs

DOE has several programs that could be leveraged and expanded to support the possible 

solutions described in the preceding section: 

DOE programs with database development focus can inform the development of a centralized, 

user-friendly online resource gateway. Examples include the High Performance Buildings 

Database, the Life Cycle Inventory Database, the SEED Platform, and the Technology Portal. 

These programs can guide the specification of the resource taxonomy, and address the need for 

resource filtration.

Numerous DOE programs, including the Technology Demonstration program, CBP, the BBA, 

the Better Buildings Challenge, and the High Performance Buildings Database, use case studies 

as the primary mechanism for communicating results. As efforts proceed to make case studies 

central to new integrated resources, lessons learned from these projects may prove valuable. 

The AEDGs, which focus on audience-specific packaging of design and construction expertise, 

energy modeling results, and whole-building and system-level case studies, can be useful 

references for the development of new integrated resources. Additionally, CBP efforts are 

shifting from producing case studies to developing integrated resources that are designed to 

expand the applicability of those case studies to a wider audience.

5.8.4 Potential Collaborators

Numerous collaborators may be necessary for the successful development and deployment of 

integrated resources. Some of the most important collaborations are described in Table 5–12. 
59 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5–12 Potential Key Collaborators for Integrated Resource Solutions

Other potential collaborators for integrated resource solutions include:

• Design-Build Institute of America

• AHRI

• Universities

• Labs21 

• Utilities

• International Living Future Institute (ILFI).

5.8.5 Solution Timeline

Figure 5–19 presents a possible integrated resource solution timeline, which characterizes 

solutions as short term (0–3 years), medium term (3–6 years), or long term (6–15 years), and 

identifies relationships between solutions.

Figure 5–19 Possible integrated resource solution timeline
60 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5.9 Renewable Energy and Grid Interactions

There are important interconnections between the energy efficiency component of NZE (the 

focus of this report), renewable energy generation, and the electrical grid. The load variability of 

NZE buildings and the associated risk to supply-side optimization may represent a significant 

obstacle to achieving the market penetration of NZE suggested by the Architecture 2030 

initiative and EISA 2007. Commercially viable NZE buildings are expected to become a larger 

share of the commercial building footprint as government and private sector polices continue to 

push for buildings to produce more on-site energy than they use. However, the load profiles of 

NZE buildings are perceived by electric utilities to be unfavorable and unpredictable. 

To reach net zero in large commercial buildings, significant on-site renewables typically export 

to the electric utility to offset energy use during night hours. Currently, most NZE buildings do 

not manage the resulting load shapes. This can result in a utility load profile that can wildly 

fluctuate from exporting to importing, have minimal peak demand savings, and still peak during 

summer afternoons. Potential electric vehicle charging has the potential to make the load profile 

even less favorable. Improved methods for controlling NZE load profiles could be developed to 

manage the numerous building scale, storage, and demand response options available, optimizing 

utility grid interactions while increasing the value to the building owner.
61 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 Conclusions

For decades, DOE has developed and deployed resources, methods, tools, and technologies that 

improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. Thanks in large part to these efforts, high 

performance buildings are becoming much more common, and it is even possible in some 

situations to design and construct cost-effective NZE buildings that produce as much energy as 

they consume. Although many essential high performance building principles are well 

understood, uptake in the marketplace for new commercial construction is limited by real and 

perceived barriers, technical roadblocks, and financial constraints. 

This report identifies possible goals and strategic priorities for DOE’s portfolio of new 

construction research and deployment programs, focusing on the CBI program. These 

recommendations were built around the foundation of five key focus areas that reflect the results 

of an intensive gap analysis and stakeholder dialogues. These focus areas, along with several 

possible high priority activities, are described below:

1. Energy benchmark data: System and whole-building level energy benchmark data, 

organized by building type and climate, which can be used for setting performance 

targets for new buildings.

• Define normalization methods and metrics that address building use, size, and 

other energy drivers. 

• Create analysis-based whole building benchmarks by climate zone and building 

type, normalized as appropriate. 

• Establish analysis-based whole building targets for high performance and NZER 

buildings. 

• Define end-use level targets consistent with whole-building targets. 

• Leverage Portfolio Manager and the Building Performance Database to gather a 

statistically significant set of high performance new construction benchmark data. 

2. Enhanced modeling tools: Improved modeling tools to support financial decisionmaking, whole-building design, analysis of new technologies, model calibration, and 

identification of operational/behavioral influences on energy use throughout the building 

life cycle.

• Provide efficiency package optimization capability. 

• Develop better early stage design tools, such as using heuristic-based analysis

derived from large-scale simulations of efficiency perturbations individually and 

in combination. . 

• Develop prepackaged optimized design solutions for small businesses. 

• Conduct a study of user interface needs for diverse audiences and applications, 

and customize user interfaces for those audiences. 

• Perform laboratory and field testing of high performance building equipment and 

complex systems to improve modeling algorithm accuracy. 
62 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3. Better cost data: Objective, vetted average component- and system-level cost data for 

analysis of return on investment. 

• Perform an assessment of industry cost data workflows.

• Identify cost data parameters that impact design decisions.

• Establish a cost estimation procedure that systematically accounts for system 

interactions and tradeoffs.

• Develop a clear business case for community-based cost data collection to 

motivate building owners, AECO companies, equipment manufacturers, and 

equipment vendors to supply cost information to a public database. 

• Expand partnerships for cost data collection and maintenance. 

• Create a publicly accessible cost database that facilitates early design decision 

making, or support enhancements to existing databases to include cost data. 

4. Commissioning and operational strategies: Effective commissioning and operational 

methods, technologies, and tools, demonstrated through case studies. 

• Improve project delivery methods to better ensure that high performance 

buildings meet specified targets.

• Study the nature and magnitude of commissioning and operating failures that 

cause buildings to perform below expectations. 

• Document best practices for commissioning, operating, and maintaining advanced 

systems and technologies in high performance buildings. 

• Develop educational materials for building occupants about the features of high 

performance buildings and simple things they can do to help such buildings 

perform optimally.

• Identify robust design strategies, self-diagnostic capabilities, and automated fault 

detection techniques that mitigate the impact of operational deficiencies. 

5. Integrated resources: Integrated resources that include new construction case studies, 

best practice guides, datasets, and tools in a more accessible, adaptable, and user-friendly 

format.

• Evaluate current federal resource integration practices to determine opportunities 

for improved delivery of information. 

• Create a workflow specification and resource taxonomy that allows all available

resources to be filtered according to project parameters and intended audience. 

• Establish the requirements of a centralized gateway for resources that would 

enable users to find the information they need in one place. 

• Document case studies that emphasize cost and performance details, and use

additional analysis to expand the applicability of the relevant design and 

construction strategies to a wider range of project parameters.
63 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

While the recommendations in this report address each of the five key focus areas individually, a 

holistic, integrated approach to project definition, execution, and evaluation could maximize the 

ability of new construction efforts to address the critical barriers that inhibit large scale uptake of 

high performance buildings in the commercial sector. Moving forward, coordination between 

focus areas will be valuable for ensuring that such interdependencies are properly addressed. A 

coordinated effort in which the work in one focus area builds from and supports the work in the 

others could increase both the value of DOE’s investment and the ability of these efforts to 

transform the commercial buildings sector.

The recommended solutions described in this report could lead to improved technologies, more 

user-friendly integrated building systems, sustainable business models, and greatly enhanced 

deployment of high performance commercial buildings. Broad implementation of high 

performance and NZE buildings will require the ongoing participation and advice of commercial 

building professionals on the front lines. Collaborations between DOE experts and industry will 

be essential for stimulating innovation and leading the market toward the ultimate goal of costeffective NZE commercial buildings by 2030.
64 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

7 References

Baker, K. 2012. Despite National and International Impediments, Some Improvement 

Anticipated: Weak economic growth is holding back a construction recovery. Practicing 

Architecture. American Institute of Architects. www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB095480

Briggs, R.S., R.G. Lucas, and Z.T. Taylor. 2003. Climate classification for building energy codes 

and standards: Part 2—Zone Definitions, Maps, and Comparisons. ASHRAE Transactions 

109(1):122-130. 

Building Design+Construction. 2011. Zero and Net-Zero Energy Buildings + Homes: Eighth in 

a Series of White Papers on the Green Building Movement. www.bdcnetwork.com/2011-zeroand-net-zero-energy-buildings-homes

DOE. 2001. High-Performance Commercial Buildings: A Technology Roadmap. Office of 

Building Technology, State and Community Programs. Report DOE/GO-102001-

1343. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/30171.pdf

DOE. 2003. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Energy. www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/ 

DOE. Undated, circa 2008. Building Technologies Program Planning 

Summary. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/pdfs/btp_planning.pdf

DOE. 2008. Building Technologies Program Planned Program Activities for 2008-

2012. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/myp08complete.pdf

DOE. 2011. Building Technologies Program: Multi-Year Work Plan 2011-

2015. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/myp11.pdf

DOE. 2012a. Annual Energy Outlook. Reference Case Tables Released: December 5, 

2012. www.eia.gov/analysis/projection-data.cfm

DOE. 2012b. 2011 Buildings Energy Data Book. Prepared by D&R International, Ltd. under 

contract to Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/default.aspx 

DOE. 2013. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide for K-12 Schools. DOE/GO-102013-

3467. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/aerg.html

Energetics Incorporated. Summary Report: Policy Options Workshop: Accelerating Energy 

Efficiency in Commercial Buildings. 2011. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Policy and International Affairs, and Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory. www.energetics.com/resourcecenter/products/studies/Documents/Commercial_Buil

ding_Policy_Workshop.pdf
65 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Energy Design Resources. 2012. Zero Net Energy: The zero net energy future starts today. ENEWS, Issue 86, October 

2012. www.energydesignresources.com/media/12336528/edr_enews_086.pdf

Engage360/CPUC. 2010. California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, Net Zero Energy Action 

Plan. www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6C2310FE-AFE0-48E4-AF03-

530A99D28FCE/0/ZNEActionPlanFINAL83110.pdf

Griffith, B., Long, N., Torcellini, P., and Judkoff, R. 2007. National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory; D. Crawley and J. Ryan, U.S. Department of Energy. Assessment of the Technical 

Lee, E.S., Fernandes, L.L., Coffey, B., McNeil, A., Clear, R., Webster, T., Bauman, F., 

Dickerhoff, D., Heinzerling, D., and Hoyt, T. 2013. A Post-Occupancy Monitored Evaluation 

of the Dimmable Lighting, Automated Shading, and Underfloor Air Distribution System in the 

New York Times Building. LBNL Report: LBNL6023E. http://buildings.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6023e.pdf

Potential for Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector. Technical Report 

NREL/TP-550-41957. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf

Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. 2012. The Road to ZNE: Mapping Pathways to ZNE Buildings 

in California (Draft). Report to Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company. www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/pdaDocs/891/Road%20to%20ZNE%20Draft%2

0Report_PUBLICDRAFT_121120.pdf

Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force. 2009. Getting to Zero: Final Report of 

the Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task 

Force. www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/press/publications/zneb-taskforce-report.pdf

McGraw Hill Construction. 2012b. WORLD GREEN BUILDING TRENDS: Business 

Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities In Over 60 

Countries. www.worldgbc.org/files/8613/6295/6420/World_Green_Building_Trends_SmartMar

ket_Report_2013.pdf 

McGraw Hill Construction. 2012a. 2013 Dodge Construction Outlook. 

Mills, E. 2009. Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs 

and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Report to California Energy Commission. Berkeley, CA: 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://cx.lbl.gov/documents/2009-assessment/lbnl-cxcost-benefit.pdf

National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology. 2008. “Federal Research 

and Development Agenda for Net-Zero Energy, High-Performance Green Buildings.” Report of 

the Subcommittee on Buildings Technology Research and Development, October 

2008. www.bfrl.nist.gov/buildingtechnology/documents/FederalRDAgendaforNetZeroEnergyHi

ghPerformanceGreenBuildings.pdf
66 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

NBI. 2012. Getting to Zero 2012 Status Update: A First Look at the Costs and Features of Zero 

Energy Commercial Buildings. Research Report. Vancouver, WA: New Buildings 

Institute. www.newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/GettingtoZeroReport_0.pdf

NBI; NASEO. 2012. Developing a National Zero-Net Energy Action Plan: San Francisco 

Meeting Report. Vancouver, WA: New Buildings Institute and Arlington, VA: National 

Association of State Energy 

Officials. http://newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/ZNE_Meeting_Report_7-24_0.pdf

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. 2012. Roadmap to Zero Net Energy Public 

Buildings: Recommended Steps for the Northeast and MidAtlantic. http://neep.org/uploads/policy/zne-public-buildings-neep-2012.pdf

Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 2012. The Technical Feasibility of Zero Net Energy 

Buildings in California. DRAFT Report 

ZNE/219664. www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/pdaDocs/890/ZNE%20Technical%20Feasibi

lity%20-%20DRAFT%20Report.pdf

Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. 2010. Net-Zero Energy Buildings: A Classification System Based on 

Renewable Energy Supply Options. 21 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-550-

44586. http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/pdfs/44586.pdf 

Pless, S.; Torcellini, P.; Shelton, D. 2011. Using an Energy Performance Based Design-Build 

Process to Procure a Large Scale Low-Energy Building. ASHRAE Winter Conference, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, January 29 – February 2, 2011. Conference Paper NREL/CP-5500-

51323. www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/pdfs/51323.pdf

Selkowitz, S.; Granderson, J.; Haves, P.; Mathew, P.; Harris, J. 2008. Scale Matters: An Action 

Plan for Realizing Sector-Wide “Zero Energy” Performance Goals in Commercial Buildings. 

Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Washington, D.C.: Alliance to 

Save Energy. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kf4t1nh#page-1

Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M.; Crawley, D. 2006. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look 

at the Definition (Preprint). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. CP-550-

39833. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39883.pdf 

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2009. Transforming the Market: Energy 

Efficiency in Buildings. www.wbcsd.org/transformingthemarketeeb.aspx

Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Consortium. 2011. Next Generation Technologies Barriers 

& Industry Recommendations for Commercial Building. http://zeroenergycbc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/CBC-Technologies-Report-2011.pdf
67 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix A: Roadmaps, Policy Studies, and Market 

Analyses Used To Guide Recommendations

Table A–1 Publications Used To Guide the Recommendations in This Report

Number Document Type

1 

Baker, K. 2012. Despite National and International Impediments, Some 

Improvement Anticipated: Weak economic growth is holding back a 

construction recovery. Practicing Architecture. American Institute of 

Architects. www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB095480

Market 

Analysis

2 

Building Design+Construction. 2011. Zero and Net-Zero Energy 

Buildings + Homes: Eighth in a Series of White Papers on the Green 

Building Movement./www.bdcnetwork.com/2011-zero-and-net-zeroenergy-buildings-homes

White Paper

3 

Energetics Incorporated. Summary Report: Policy Options Workshop: 

Accelerating Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings. 2011. Report to 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy and International Affairs, 

and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

www.energetics.com/resourcecenter/products/studies/Documents/Comm

ercial_Building_Policy_Workshop.pdf

Workshop 

Summary

4 

Energy Design Resources. 2012. Zero Net Energy: The zero net energy 

future starts today. E-NEWS, Issue 86, October 2012. 

www.energydesignresources.com/media/12336528/edr_enews_086.pdf

Newsletter 

Article

5 

Engage360/CPUC. 2010. California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, 

Net Zero Energy Action Plan. 

www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6C2310FE-AFE0-48E4-AF03-

530A99D28FCE/0/ZNEActionPlanFINAL83110.pdf

Roadmap

6 

Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force. 2009. Getting to 

Zero: Final Report of the Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task 

Force. www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/press/publications/zneb-taskforcereport.pdf

Roadmap

7 

McGraw Hill Construction. 2012. WORLD GREEN BUILDING TRENDS: 

Business Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities In Over 

60 Countries. http://analyticsstore.construction.com/index.php/2012-

world-green-building-trends-key-facts.html

Market 

Analysis

8 

National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology. 

2008. “Federal Research and Development Agenda for Net-Zero Energy, 

High-Performance Green Buildings.” Report of the Subcommittee on 

Buildings Technology Research and Development, October 2008. 

www.bfrl.nist.gov/buildingtechnology/documents/FederalRDAgendaforNet

ZeroEnergyHighPerformanceGreenBuildings.pdf

Roadmap

9 

New Buildings Institute. 2012. Getting to Zero 2012 Status Update: A 

First Look at the Costs and Features of Zero Energy Commercial 

Buildings. Research Report. 

www.newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/GettingtoZeroReport_0.pdf

Market 

Analysis

10

New Buildings Institute and National Association of State Energy 

Officials. 2012. Developing a National Zero-Net Energy Action Plan: 

San Francisco Meeting Report. http://newbuildings.org/sites/default/ 

files/ZNE_Meeting_Report_7-24_0.pdf

Workshop 

Summary
68 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

11

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. 2012. Roadmap to Zero Net 

Energy Public Buildings: Recommended Steps for the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic. http://neep.org/uploads/policy/zne-public-buildings-neep2012.pdf

Roadmap

12

Selkowitz, Stephen, Jessica Granderson, Philip Haves, Paul Mathew, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Jeff Harris, Alliance to Save 

Energy. 2008. Scale Matters: An Action Plan for Realizing Sector-Wide 

“Zero Energy” Performance Goals in Commercial Buildings. 

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kf4t1nh#page-1

Roadmap

13

U.S. DOE. Undated, circa 2008. Building Technologies Program 

Planning Summary. 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/pdfs/btp_planning.pdf

Program Plan

14

U.S. DOE. 2011. Building Technologies Program: Multi-Year Work Plan 

2011-2015. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

corporate/myp11.pdf

Program Plan

15

U.S. DOE. 2008. Building Technologies Program Planned Program 

Activities for 2008-2012. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

publications/pdfs/corporate/myp08complete.pdf

Program Plan

16

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2009. 

Transforming the Market: Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 

www.wbcsd.org/transformingthemarketeeb.aspx

Roadmap

17

Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Consortium. 2011. Next Generation 

Technologies Barriers & Industry Recommendations for Commercial 

Building. http://zeroenergycbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/CBCTechnologies-Report-2011.pdf

Roadmap

18

Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 2012. The Technical Feasibility of Zero 

Net Energy Buildings in California. DRAFT Report ZNE/219664. 

www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/pdaDocs/890/ZNE%20Technical%2

0Feasibility%20-%20DRAFT%20Report.pdf

Technology 

Analysis

19

B. Griffith, N. Long, P. Torcellini, and R. Judkoff, National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory; D. Crawley and J. Ryan, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 2007. Assessment of the Technical Potential for Achieving Net 

Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector. Technical Report 

NREL/TP-550-41957. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf

Technology 

Analysis

20

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and 

Community Programs. 2001. High-Performance Commercial Buildings: 

A Technology Roadmap. Report DOE/GO-102001-1343. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/30171.pdf

Roadmap

21

Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. 2012. The Road to ZNE: Mapping 

Pathways to ZNE Buildings in California (Draft). Report to Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company. 

www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/pdaDocs/891/Road%20to%20ZNE%

20Draft%20Report_PUBLICDRAFT_121120.pdf

Roadmap
69 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix B: Prioritization of Barriers Identified in 

Previous Roadmaps

Table B–1 Identified Barriers

# Category Barrier 

Within 

DOE 

Purview?

Number 

of 

Citations

1 Financing 

Mechanisms

Lack of model tax incentives for energy 

efficiency No 1 

2 Financing 

Mechanisms

Lack of access to capital for efficiency 

improvements, or prohibitively high cost of 

capital

Yes 3 

3 Financing 

Mechanisms

ROI expectations for efficiency investments are 

typically higher than for other projects because 

they are not perceived as core to company 

operations

Yes 1 

4 Financing 

Mechanisms

Financial analysis models are often overgeneralized and opaque, utilizing only a few 

inapplicable inputs or using assumptions and 

algorithms that do not correctly evaluate the 

projected payback 

Yes 1 

5 Financing 

Mechanisms

Ingrained practices in the financial and real 

estate sectors fail to sufficiently recognize the 

increase in buildings’ values associated with 

energy efficiency improvements

Yes 3 

6 Financing 

Mechanisms

Amortization schedules and other tax incentives 

favor turnover of commercial buildings, reducing 

incentives to make energy efficiency 

investments that have longer payback periods

No 1 

7 Financing 

Mechanisms

Utilities are incentivized to lower their rates to 

attract and retain customers and have much 

less incentive to focus on lowering their 

customers’ energy bills

No 1 

8 Financing 

Mechanisms

Government entities need greater access to 

financial instruments such as federal and state 

tax incentives

No 1 

9 Financing 

Mechanisms

Tax incentives often have a time-consuming 

application processes that does not coincide

with the real estate commercial development 

cycle

No 1 

10 Strategy/Package 

Selection

Lack of tools and resources dedicated to 

specific sectors (such as schools) Yes 1 

11 Strategy/Package 

Selection

Decision-makers need better information about 

techniques for achieving substantial energy use 

reductions and the estimated costs and benefits 

of those measures

Yes 5 

12 Strategy/Package 

Selection

Information on integrated design is lacking in 

high performance building databases Yes 1 

13 Strategy/Package 

Selection

Many of the failures in modern buildings are 

system integration failures Yes 1 
70 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

14 Strategy/Package 

Selection

The technologies and integrated systems 

needed for many designs are not easy to find at 

affordable cost and are challenging to 

incorporate into a design in a manner that will 

work reliably

Yes 3 

15 Measurement and 

Verification

Need for standardized procedures for 

measurement, calibration, and publishing of 

performance data

Yes 1 

16 Measurement and 

Verification

Lack of testing approaches for nonenergy 

benefits Yes 1 

17 Measurement and 

Verification

Most bill-payers lack sufficient access to 

detailed utility billing data No 2 

18 Strategy/Package 

Selection

Energy prices can fluctuate tremendously, 

casting uncertainty on potential savings from 

investments in energy efficiency

No 2 

19 Strategy/Package 

Selection

Owners and lenders are focused on the cost of 

construction or short-term returns on investment 

while ignoring long-term operating cost savings

due to increased building performance

Yes 7 

20 Strategy/Package 

Selection

There is a dearth of information on the nonenergy benefits of efficiency packages and 

measures

Yes 2 

21 Measurement and 

Verification

Energy utility bills typically lack the granularity 

required to pinpoint the elements driving energy 

use in any particular building

Yes 2 

22 Portfolio/MultiBuilding Analysis

There is a tendency to look at buildings as 

individual entities rather than part of a 

community or a broader portfolio of structures

Yes 1 

23 Portfolio/MultiBuilding Analysis Lack of holistic regional planning Yes 1 

24 Fundamental 

Analysis Tools

Need standardized inputs for energy modeling 

tools Yes 1 

25 Fundamental 

Analysis Tools

Complex modeling tools require specialized 

expertise and are time-intensive Yes 4 

26 Fundamental 

Analysis Tools

Modeling tools often don't adequately 

accommodate advanced technologies and 

systems (such as daylighting controls)

Yes 2 

27 Fundamental 

Analysis Tools

Better part-load performance data needed for 

modeling HVAC equipment Yes 1 

28

Design and 

Construction 

Process

Integrated design directed toward high 

performance can be executed by a few leading 

firms but is not the norm across the industry

Yes 7 

29

Design and 

Construction 

Process

Soft costs related to the design and construction 

of high performance buildings are not well 

understood

Yes 1 

30

Design and 

Construction 

Process

Capital budgets and operating budgets are set 

and managed independently Yes 7 

31

Design and 

Construction 

Process

Organizations often form teams that are too 

small (often only a single energy champion), 

and lack the resources or knowledge to be 

successful

Yes 1 
71 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

32

Design and 

Construction 

Process

Lack of an energy manager or building operator 

who is authorized to either make investments in 

energy-efficient technologies or change 

operational practices to save energy

No 1 

33

Design and 

Construction 

Process

The design, construction, and operation of 

commercial buildings involve multiple parties 

and their Incentives to invest in and implement 

energy efficiency vary widely (e.g., split 

incentives)

Yes 7 

34

Design and 

Construction 

Process

When construction changes are needed (for 

scheduling or product availability), the solutions 

are often not evaluated consistent with the 

design goals and don't consider energy impacts

Yes 1 

35 Strategy 

Demonstration

The industry lacks data about cost-effectiveness 

of high-performance buildings that use leapfrog 

technologies and design approaches

Yes 6 

36 Life Cycle 

Assessment

The choice of whether an item is allocated to 

the annual budget or capitalized can hinder or 

promote the use of total cost of ownership 

analysis

Yes 1 

37 Life Cycle 

Assessment

Need for increased deployment of life cycle cost 

analysis tools Yes 1 

38 Data Collection and 

Dissemination

Benchmark data of actual building performance 

by building type and climate zone is very limited Yes 4 

39 Data Collection and 

Dissemination

Need better disclosure requirements for energy 

performance data Yes 4 

40 Data Collection and 

Dissemination

Making all utility billing data accessible (in an 

anonymous format) for various purposes of 

measurement and analysis is not possible today

Yes 1 

41 Education and 

Training

There is a lot of bad information in the field of 

high-performance buildings due to overgeneralization of findings from past projects Yes 1 

42 Education and 

Training

Lack of policy package or “one-pagers” to give 

to state legislatures describing the benefit of 

NZE or high-performance buildings

Yes 1 

43 Education and 

Training

Need for FAQ documents tailored to key 

audiences Yes 1 

44 Education and 

Training

Building operator education and certification is 

needed for ZNE buildings Yes 7 

45 Education and 

Training

There is not a sufficiently large number of local 

and highly skilled professionals that are able to 

guide a building project toward optimal energy 

performance

Yes 8 

46 Education and 

Training

Need for clarity and consensus on specific 

workforce needs Yes 2 

47 Technology 

Development

Need for information on high-performance 

pathways for key building systems Yes 1 

48 Technology 

Development

Need for smarter, predictive, and self-diagnostic 

energy management systems Yes 3 

49 Technology 

Development

Daylighting is inherently complex and a number 

of elements must be carefully integrated to 

ensure savings

Yes 2 
72 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

50 Technology 

Development

Getting beyond 50% savings requires 

addressing plug and process loads, where there 

is currently little research

Yes 3 

51 Technology 

Development

A higher level of sensor and measurement 

accuracy and reliability, especially the latent 

component of the load, is needed.

Yes 1 

52 Technology 

Development

There is a need for high-performance and costeffective building envelope commissioning 

technologies

Yes 1 

53 Technology 

Development

Better methods are needed for avoiding 

systems working at cross-purposes to maintain 

occupant comfort

Yes 1 

54 Technology 

Development

Smaller capacity equipment that will be more 

common in NZE buildings tend to have lower 

efficiency

Yes 1 

55 Energy 

Performance Goals

Separate targets are need for building types 

that cannot achieve NZE using on-site 

generation and those that are just very 

challenging 

Yes 2 

56 Energy 

Performance Goals

The NZE movement can have the perverse 

effect of encouraging urban sprawl given that 

smaller one-story buildings are perceived to 

achieve ZNE easier than large ones

Yes 2 

57 Energy 

Performance Goals

Need to further refine the language or lexicon 

used to discuss NZE Yes 2 

58 Energy 

Performance Goals

The marketplace needs clear summaries of the 

conditions where NZE is most feasible Yes 1 

59 Energy 

Performance Goals

There are a limited number of political leaders 

engaged in support of energy efficiency No 2 

60 Energy 

Performance Goals

The multitude of federal program initiatives for 

commercial building energy efficiency— in 

particular at DOE and EPA—can be a source of 

confusion among building owners, operators, 

and occupants

Yes 1 

61

Energy 

Performance 

Assessment

There is an overabundance of metrics being 

used in too many different ways to allow for 

easy benchmarking and comparisons

Yes 3 

62

Building Operation 

and Occupant 

Behavior

Most organizations do not know how to 

convince occupants to change their behaviors Yes 1 

63

Building Operation 

and Occupant 

Behavior

Buildings not operated in a way that achieves 

intended performance Yes 8 

64

Building Operation 

and Occupant 

Behavior

Energy cost impacts of specific behaviors and 

operational practices are not well understood Yes 2 

65

Building Operation 

and Occupant 

Behavior

Occupants who lease office space may not 

understand their stake in energy performance Yes 3 

66 Utilities Research is needed to examine how NZE 

buildings impact the load profile of utilities No 2 

67 Utilities

Lack of state requirements for utilities to carry 

out integrated resource planning, utilizing the 

least-cost resource mix, including both supply 

and demand-side options

No 2 
73 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

68 Utilities Utility rates do not fully decouple cost-recovery 

from volumetric sales No 1 

69 Utilities

Some utilities do not see energy efficiency as a 

significant strategy for managing resource 

portfolios

No 1