BENCHMARKING & DISCLOSURE REPORT

Transcription

1 BENCHMARKING & DISCLOSURE REPORT DRAFT COPY SUBJECT PROPERTY: Property Name: Property Address: Property Type: Gross Square Footage (SF): Office 6 - Pre ECM 69 New Street New York, NY Office - Large (>50,000 SF) 199,692 SF PROJECT NAME: Sample BDR PROJECT NUMBER: BDR1 REPORT DATE: May 15, 2012 (DRAFT) PREPARED FOR: John Doe, Project Manager ABC Property Management - 69 New Street - New York, NY PREPARED BY: Main St - Suite Anytown, CT 06611

2 May 15, 2012 (DRAFT) John Doe ABC Property Management 69 New Street New York, NY Re: Benchmarking & Disclosure Report for the Subject Property Located at 69 New Street, New York, NY Dear John, Attached is XYZ Consulting, Inc's. Benchmarking & Disclosure Report (BDR) for the above referenced subject property. The scope of work for this BDR is intended to benchmark the subject property's energy key performance indicators to its relevant peer groups from a local market to nationwide level. This industry best practice benchmarking analysis provides insight and supports the recommended next steps to identify the energy conservation measures that meet your payback term and ROI requirements while improving the energy performance of the subject property. REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT REVIEWED BY: Johnny Doe Larry Smith Principal

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This is where the consultant will draft their executive summary introduction. ENERGY STAR Rating The below chart displays the ENERGY STAR rating for the subject property. ENERGY STAR Rating Property Type: Office (>5,000 SF) Peer Group: Nationwide (498 peer buildings) Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data is current through December The subject property's most recent Energy Star rating of 65, received in January 2011, is 15 points above the national average and 10 points below the threshold rating of 75 needed to earn an Energy Star label. Peer Building Benchmarking Utility Type Peer Building Benchmarking - Utility Cost Property Type: Peer Group: Subject Property 12 Months Spend Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (79 peer buildings) Subject Property Cost per SF ($/SF/yr) Peer Group Benchmark Median Cost per SF ($/SF/yr) Subject Property % Better / (Worse) Than Peer Group Median Subject Property Potential Annual Cost Savings vs Peer Group Median ($/yr) Electricity $865,166 $4.33 / SF $2.83 / SF (53.1%) $300,038 Fuels $120,517 $0.60 / SF $0.71 / SF 15.0% N/A Water/Sewer $19,393 $0.10 / SF $0.18 / SF 46.0% N/A SRS Peer Building Benchmarking data is current through May As compared to its peer buildings median annual electricity cost per square foot, the electricity cost at the subject property is $1.50 / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median electricity performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual electricity cost by $300,038. Page 3

4 Key Performance Metric Peer Building Benchmarking - Energy Use Intensity Property Type: Peer Group: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (129 peer buildings) Subject Property 12 Months Total Use per SF Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Peer Group Benchmark Median Use per SF Subject Property % Better / (Worse) Than Peer Group Median Subject Property Potential Annual Cost Savings vs Peer Group Median ($/yr) Electricity Use Intensity kwh / SF kwh / SF (33.7%) $217,919 Fuels Use Intensity kbtu / SF kbtu / SF 48.1% N/A Energy Use Intensity (EUI) kbtu / SF kbtu / SF (8.1%) $73,722 Water/Sewer Use Intensity gal / SF gal / SF (2.5%) $482 SRS Peer Building Benchmarking data is current through May As compared to its peer buildings median annual electricity use per square foot, the electricity use at the subject property is 4.70 kwh / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median electricity performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual electricity cost by $217,919. As compared to its peer buildings median annual energy use per square foot, the energy use at the subject property is 5.83 kwh / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median energy performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual energy cost by $73,722. As compared to its peer buildings median annual water/sewer use per square foot, the water/sewer use at the subject property is.51 kwh / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median water/sewer performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual water/sewer cost by $482. Conclusions and Recommendations This is where the consultant will draft their conclusions and recommendations narrative. Page 4

5 SUBJECT PROPERTY PROFILE Property Name: Property Address: Property Type: Gross Square Footage (SF): Office 6 - Pre ECM 69 New Street New York, NY Office - Large (>50,000 SF) 199,692 SF Reporting Period: Dec 2008 to Jan 2011 Property Location The maps below display the subject property location. Street Map Aerial Map Page 5

6 Utility Account Summary Subject Property Utilities Utility Account Utility Type Specified Reporting Period Electric Meter 1 Electrical 12/ /2011 Electric Meter 2 Electrical 12/ /2011 Electric Meter 3 Electrical 12/ /2011 Electric Meter 4 Electrical 12/ /2011 Pepco Energy Services Electrical 12/ /2011 Sewer 1 Sewage 12/ /2011 Steam 1 Steam 12/ /2011 Water Meter 1 Water 12/ /2011 Subject Property Profile Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their subject property profile narrative. Page 6

7 UTILITY COST Overall Utility Cost The above chart displays the percentage allocation of utility costs over the last twelve months of the specified reporting period from Feb 2010 to Jan The subject property's total utility costs are allocated between Electrical (86.1%), Water/Sewer (0.6%), Steam (12.0%) and Water/Sewer (1.3%). Historical Energy Cost The above chart displays a comparison of total energy (electric and fuels) cost, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Page 7

8 Historical Electricity Cost The chart above displays a comparison of electricity cost, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Page 8

9 Historical Fuels Cost The chart above displays a comparison of all fuels cost, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Page 9

10 Historical Water/Sewer Cost The above chart displays a comparison of total water/sewer cost, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Utility Cost Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Utility Cost narrative. PEER BUILDING BENCHMARKING - UTILITY COST To facilitate an industry best practice for benchmarking building energy and sustainability performance, Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, Inc, (SRS) maintains the SRS Peer Building Benchmarking TM database, containing over 120,000 buildings. These buildings, encompassing 15 primary property types and 3.3 billion square feet, consume more than $7.8 billion in annual energy costs and $635 million in annual water/sewer costs. The database is aggregated from multiple private sources, including energy services and property due diligence providers and is current through May To facilitate benchmarking, the subject property's energy and sustainability performance is compared to its peer group's performance distribution (25th percentile, median, 75th percentile) across multiple geographic areas, i.e., ZIP Code, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), State, Climate Region and Nationwide. For each subject property under review, the Database is queried with reference to the property type and location. The results are summarized in the following charts and descriptions which include a detailed statistical analysis of energy and sustainability key performance indicators. Page 10

11 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (98 peer buildings) Energy Cost per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (148 peer buildings) Same State (62 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (473 peer buildings) Nationwide (1,483 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Page 11

12 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (79 peer buildings) Electric Cost per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (121 peer buildings) Same State (52 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (439 peer buildings) Nationwide (1,420 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Page 12

13 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (79 peer buildings) Fuels Cost per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (115 peer buildings) Same State (44 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (202 peer buildings) Nationwide (621 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Page 13

14 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (58 peer buildings) Water/Sewer Cost per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (93 peer buildings) Same State (51 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (418 peer buildings) Nationwide (1,358 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Peer Building Benchmarking - Utility Cost Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Utility Cost Peer Group Benchmarking narrative. Narrative and analysis. Page 14

15 ENERGY USE Overall Energy Use The above chart displays the percentage allocation of energy use by type over the last twelve months of the specified reporting period from Feb 2010 to Jan The subject property's energy use is allocated between Electrical (81.7%) and Steam (18.3%). Historical Energy Use The above chart displays a comparison of total energy (electric and fuels) usage, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Page 15

16 Historical Electricity Use The chart above displays a comparison of electricity usage, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Page 16

17 Historical Fuels Use The chart above displays a comparison of all fuels usage, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period from Dec 2008 to Jan Energy Use Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Energy Use narrative. PEER BUILDING BENCHMARKING - ENERGY USE INTENSITY To facilitate an industry best practice for benchmarking building energy and sustainability performance, Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, Inc, (SRS) maintains the SRS Peer Building Benchmarking TM database, containing over 120,000 buildings. These buildings, encompassing 15 primary property types and 3.3 billion square feet, consume more than $7.8 billion in annual energy costs and $635 million in annual water/sewer costs. The database is aggregated from multiple private sources, including energy services and property due diligence providers and is current through May To facilitate benchmarking, the subject property's energy and sustainability performance is compared to its peer group's performance distribution (25th percentile, median, 75th percentile) across multiple geographic areas, i.e., ZIP Code, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), State, Climate Region and Nationwide. For each subject property under review, the Database is queried with reference to the property type and location. The results are summarized in the following charts and descriptions which include a detailed statistical analysis of energy and sustainability key performance indicators. Page 17

18 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (129 peer buildings) Energy Use per SF (EUI) Peer Building Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (182 peer buildings) Same State (62 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (507 peer buildings) Nationwide (1,483 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Page 18

19 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (122 peer buildings) Electricity Use per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (173 peer buildings) Same State (52 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (491 peer buildings) Nationwide (1,420 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Page 19

20 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (111 peer buildings) Fuels Use per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (150 peer buildings) Same State (44 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (237 peer buildings) Nationwide (621 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Peer Building Benchmarking - Energy Use Intensity Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Energy Use Peer Group Benchmarking narrative. Page 20

21 WATER/SEWER USE Historical Water/Sewer Use The above chart displays a comparison of total water/sewer consumption, on a monthly basis, over the specified reporting period. Water/Sewer Use Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Water/Sewer Use narrative. PEER BUILDING BENCHMARKING - WATER/SEWER USE INTENSITY To facilitate an industry best practice for benchmarking building energy and sustainability performance, Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, Inc, (SRS) maintains the SRS Peer Building Benchmarking TM database, containing over 120,000 buildings. These buildings, encompassing 15 primary property types and 3.3 billion square feet, consume more than $7.8 billion in annual energy costs and $635 million in annual water/sewer costs. The database is aggregated from multiple private sources, including energy services and property due diligence providers and is current through May To facilitate benchmarking, the subject property's energy and sustainability performance is compared to its peer group's performance distribution (25th percentile, median, 75th percentile) across multiple geographic areas, i.e., ZIP Code, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), State, Climate Region and Nationwide. For each subject property under review, the Database is queried with reference to the property type and location. The results are summarized in the following charts and descriptions which include a detailed statistical analysis of energy and sustainability key performance indicators. Page 21

22 Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (58 peer buildings) Water Use per SF Peer Group Comparison Property Type: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same CBSA Market (93 peer buildings) Same State (51 peer buildings) Same Climate Region (418 peer buildings) Nationwide (1,358 peer buildings) Subject property value for Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Peer Building Benchmarking - Water/Sewer Use Intensity Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Water/Sewer Use Peer Group Benchmarking narrative. Page 22

23 PEER BUILDING BENCHMARKING SUMMARY Utility Type Peer Building Benchmarking - Utility Cost Property Type: Peer Group: Subject Property 12 Months Spend Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (79 peer buildings) Subject Property Cost per SF ($/SF/yr) Peer Group Benchmark Median Cost per SF ($/SF/yr) Subject Property % Better / (Worse) Than Peer Group Median Subject Property Potential Annual Cost Savings vs Peer Group Median ($/yr) Electricity $865,166 $4.33 / SF $2.83 / SF (53.1%) $300,038 Fuels $120,517 $0.60 / SF $0.71 / SF 15.0% N/A Water/Sewer $19,393 $0.10 / SF $0.18 / SF 46.0% N/A SRS Peer Building Benchmarking data is current through May As compared to its peer buildings median annual electricity cost per square foot, the electricity cost at the subject property is $1.50 / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median electricity performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual electricity cost by $300,038. Key Performance Metric Peer Building Benchmarking - Energy Use Intensity Property Type: Peer Group: Office - Large (>50,000 SF) Same 3-Digit ZIP Code (129 peer buildings) Subject Property 12 Months Total Use per SF Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 Peer Group Benchmark Median Use per SF Subject Property % Better / (Worse) Than Peer Group Median Subject Property Potential Annual Cost Savings vs Peer Group Median ($/yr) Electricity Use Intensity kwh / SF kwh / SF (33.7%) $217,919 Fuels Use Intensity kbtu / SF kbtu / SF 48.1% N/A Energy Use Intensity (EUI) kbtu / SF kbtu / SF (8.1%) $73,722 Water/Sewer Use Intensity gal / SF gal / SF (2.5%) $482 SRS Peer Building Benchmarking data is current through May As compared to its peer buildings median annual electricity use per square foot, the electricity use at the subject property is 4.70 kwh / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median electricity performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual electricity cost by $217,919. As compared to its peer buildings median annual energy use per square foot, the energy use at the subject property is 5.83 kwh / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median energy performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual energy cost by $73,722. Page 23

24 As compared to its peer buildings median annual water/sewer use per square foot, the water/sewer use at the subject property is.51 kwh / SF more than its peer group. If the performance of the subject property was improved to meet the median water/sewer performance of its peer group, the subject property has the potential to reduce its annual water/sewer cost by $482. Peer Building Benchmarking Summary Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Utility Cost and Energy Use Peer Group Benchmarking narrative. CarbonCheck - Estimated Carbon Emissions Associated with the Subject Property's Energy Use The CarbonCheck table below displays the estimated carbon emissions, total and floor space normalized, associated with the subject property's energy use over the trailing twelve months of the specified reporting period from Feb 2010 to Jan Estimated Carbon Emissions Associated with Subject Property's Energy Use CO2e Emissions (Trailing 12 months from Feb 2010 to Jan 2011) Total Normalized 1, tons lbs/ft2 The methodology used to calculate the estimated carbon emissions associated with the subject property's energy use, which is consistent with the ASTM Building Energy Performance Assessment (BEPA) Standard E , is described below. Carbon Emissions Discussion This is where the consultant will draft their Carbon Emissions narrative. CarbonCheck - Calculation Methodology for the Estimated Carbon Emissions Associated with the Subject Property's Energy Use Carbon emissions represent the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e (representing emissions of the combustion-related greenhouse gases (GHGs): carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) emitted annually to the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels to produce heat and power for the building. Total carbon dioxide equivalent is determined for both direct and indirect emissions. Direct emissions result from the on-site combustion of fuels. Indirect emissions result from off-site combustion of fuels at power plants that, for example, deliver electricity to the building. Page 24

25 If electricity or hot water is generated on site by alternative energy systems, for example, a solar photovoltaic system or wind energy generator technology, such electricity or hot water is not included in determining the building's carbon emissions. If electricity generated on site exceeds the needs of the facility and is sent off site to the local grid, the building's carbon emissions are credited accordingly. A building's total GHG footprint also considers hydrofluorocarbon emissions from air-conditioning and refrigeration units and perfluorocarbon and sulfur hexafluoride emissions typically associated with certain types of industrial processes. Such emissions, however, typically are relatively insignificant in buildings associated with commercial real estate transactions compared to combustion-related GHG emissions and are not included in the carbon emission methodology used in the preparation of this Benchmarking & Disclosure Report. The subject property's carbon emissions, as calculated in the CarbonCheck table below, also does not include carbon emissions associated with businessrelated air travel and automobile commuting by building occupants. Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, Inc's. (SRS) CarbonCheck calculation methodology, which is consistent with the ASTM Building Energy Performance Assessment Standard E methodology, estimates the carbon emissions of the subject property using the building's average source energy use. The subject property's average source energy use includes the building's average site energy use, including both direct energy use (for example, fuel oil or natural gas for heating) and indirect energy use (for example, electricity used for ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, office equipment, or purchased district energy), and for delivered energy (including electricity and district energy), the production, transmission and delivery losses. Direct energy use at the subject property is used to determine the carbon emissions from on-site fuel usage. On-site direct energy use in mmbtu/yr (million BTU/yr) is multiplied by the kg CO2e/mmBTU in the table below. Direct Carbon Emission Factors for Stationary Combustion Utility Type CO2 kg/mmbtu Methane kg/mmbtu Nitrous Oxide kg/mmbtu CO2e kg/mmbtu Electrical Steam Source: U.S. EPA, Climate Leaders Program, Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, Appendix B, May CarbonCheck - Indirect Carbon Emissions - Electricity The subject property's average electricity use is used to determine the carbon emissions associated with electricity usage. The CarbonCheck methodology converts annual kwh to annual mmbtu using the conversion factor of mmbtu/kwh and selects the greenhouse gas emission factor (kg CO2e/mmBTU) from the table below for the electricity grid (egrid subregion) based on the subject property location in the table below. An egrid subregion represents a portion of the U.S. power grid that is contained within a single North America Electric Reliability Council (NERC) region that have similar emissions and resource mix characteristics and may be partially isolated by transmission constraints. As an estimation to account for line losses, the CarbonCheck equation multiplies the emission factor by The approximate kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions in CO2e to satisfy the building's annual electricity demand will then be this emission factor multiplied by the building's average electricity use in annual mmbtu. The CarbonCheck calculation, uses data in the table below, based upon fuel mixes that existed at utilities in Page 25

26 Indirect Carbon Emission Factors for Purchased Electricity egrid Subregion CO2 kg/mmbtu Methane kg/mmbtu Nitrous Oxide kg/mmbtu CO2e kg/mmbtu NPCC NYC/Westchester Source: U.S. EPA's Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (egrid), egrid2008 Version 1.1 (updated January 29, 2009 with the complete release of year 2005 data). Data are organized to reflect the owner, operator and electric grid configuration as of October 1, egrid2007v1_1_year05_summarytables.pdf CarbonCheck - District Systems The subject property's average energy use is used to determine the carbon emissions from district system steam or hot water or chilled water in mmbtu. The CarbonCheck equation selects the carbon emission factor (kg CO2e/mmBTU) from the table below and these factors already take into account transmission losses. The approximate kilograms of carbon emissions in CO2e to satisfy the building's annual purchased district steam or hot water or chilled water demand will then be this emission factor multiplied by the average energy use in annual mmbtu. Page 26

27 Indirect Carbon Emission Factors (District Energy) Utility Type CO2e kg/mmbtu Steam Source: Instructions for Form EIA-1605, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, October 15, Appendix N: Emissions Benchmarks for Purchased Steam and Chilled/Hot Water. CarbonCheck - Alternative Energy Sources There are no carbon emissions resulting from the consumption of electricity produced from alternative energy sources such as on-site photovoltaic or wind generation resources. As such, in the CarbonCheck equation site electricity consumption provided by such sources is multiplied by an emission factor of zero (0) kg CO2e/ mmbtu. Hence, if a building operates entirely using an on-site solar photovoltaic array, it will have no carbon emissions. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS This is where the consultant will draft their Conclusions and Recommendations narrative. Page 27