Prioritize Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies for Buildings
After evaluating the cost to implement energy-savings measures and the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential for buildings, the program or site may prioritize implementation of those measures using criteria of importance to the Federal agency.
The Buildings GHG Mitigation Estimator summarizes energy savings and costs by program, site, building type, and mitigation measure. This can help users at different levels of the organization understand where the largest GHG reduction potential lies, and which mitigation measures are most common across programs and sites and then plan investments accordingly.
Criteria for prioritization will vary by agency but may include:
- GHG emission reduction potential by the target year [metric tonne carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) avoided]
- Total cost or lifecycle cost analysis
- Cost effectiveness ($ invested per MTCO2e avoided)
- Simple payback (years)
- Qualitative factors such as ease of implementation.
Ease of implementation can be assessed in the Buildings GHG Mitigation Estimator as Low, Medium, and High. This qualitative assessment can be used to rank projects in addition to the other criteria. For example, measures that are easily disseminated to all or most programs and sites and many different building types may be given a "High" score for ease of implementation. Such measure may include outdoor lighting retrofits, O&M policies, and occupancy sensors.
The agency may use a scoring methodology to rank-order the measures by program, location, or building type, based on weighted criteria; or may simply consider the performance against each criteria and prioritize without a quantitative ranking. In addition to prioritizing measures across an agency, this process can be used to prioritize measures at a program or site level.
The Summary tab of the Buildings GHG Mitigation Estimator provides the framework to compare the ranking of each criterion. Below is an example of how the strategies can be compared against each other both in tabular form using ranking, and graphical form using bar charts.
Table 1. Example of Strategy Comparison Using GHG Mitigation Estimator
|Measure||GHG Abatement Potential (MTCO2e/year)||Rank (on GHG Abatement Potential)||Cost Effectiveness ($/MTCO2e)||Rank (on Cost Effectiveness)||Capital Cost ($)||Annual Cost Savings ($/year)||Simple Payback||Rank (on Simple Payback)||GHG Percent Reduction from Baseline (%)|
|RCx (EBCx) Package||5,739||1||$542||1||$1,017,315||$963,730||1.1||1||4%|
|Standard Retrofit Package||4,257||2||$1,876||3||$2,649,850||$1,085,200||2.4||2||3%|
|Major Renovation (Deep Retrofit) Package||2,912||3||$1,496||2||$2,123,550||$361,350||5.9||3||2%|
GHG Abatement Potential (MTCO2e/year)
Cost Effectiveness ($/MTCO2e)
Capital Cost ($)
Simple Payback (years)
Lastly, prioritizing building mitigation activities in the context of remaining Scope 1 and 2 emissions sources (e.g., fleet and fugitive emissions) is of value as there may be other opportunities for reduction within those sources.
Finally, prioritizing building mitigation activities in the context of remaining Scope 1 and 2 emissions sources (e.g., fleet and fugitive emissions) is of value as there may be other opportunities for reduction within those sources.
- Step 1
Assess Agency Size Changes
- Step 2
Evaluate Emissions Profile
- Step 3
Evaluate Reduction Strategies
- Step 4
Estimate Implementation Costs
- Step 5
Did you find the information that you needed? Please let us know. FEMP welcomes any feedback on its GHG mitigation content. To provide feedback, see Contacts.