The Empire State Building is a 20th century icon. But she’s showing her years, so it’s time for a 21st century facelift. The world’s best-loved skyscraper is going green, helped by the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Caroline Fluhrer.
 | Empire State Goes GreenThe world's favorite skyscraper will be nearly 40 percent more energy efficient once the retrofit is finished in 2013 (Photo: Reuters) |
You are consulting on the green retrofit of one of the seven wonders of the modern world. How challenging is it?
The scale is a bit overwhelming but the building owners had been planning a 500 million dollar upgrade regardless of energy efficiency. We increased the costs by about 13 million dollars. The annual energy cost savings will be about four million dollars so the owner is getting three to four years payback.
We separated projects they were doing anyway—replacing air handling units, resealing windows, upgrading the building control system—and looked at them with energy efficiency in mind. We finally recommended eight projects that would be cost effective and reduce emissions.
Some projects will be complete by the end of 2011, and all projects will be complete by the end of 2013.
What are the most important of those eight recommended projects?
They are probably the measures that reduce the heating/cooling loads on the building. One load reduction measure is insulating the 6500 windows in the building. We are removing the double-pane windows, inserting a layer of film and gas mixture, and reinstalling the same windows.
Another project is inserting insulation behind the radiator that sits below each of those windows so we can keep more heat inside the building. Currently about half of the heat goes outside into New York.
The most important equipment project is retrofitting the chiller plant with variable frequency drives and other upgrades. The owners thought they would have to add a new chiller, but the load reduction measures I mentioned removed that need.
Another important measure is upgrading the building control system with digital controls and other tools so equipment is working only when it absolutely needs to be.
After the retrofit, how green will the building be?
We will reduce energy use by 38 percent once all the projects are complete. We are also targeting LEED for existing buildings at Gold level and anticipate easily earning the Energy Star label. That is a pretty dramatic energy reduction as most retrofits only achieve 10 to 20 percent energy savings.
How did you decide which measures to take?
It is not just about individual measures, it is about a package of measures, and that is what made it so challenging.
If you look at the windows project alone it has a very long payback period, say 15 years. But when coupled with the chiller project those two items’ payback time is very short. You can retrofit chillers rather than replacing them because you are reducing the cooling load thanks to the window project. All measures impact each other.
 | Caroline Fluhrer, consultant, Rocky Mountain Institute"We could retrofit all buildings to be net zero energy. The technologies exist. But now it is only profitable to get 40 to 50 percent energy savings" (Photo: RMI) |
What potential projects did you reject?
We looked into using LED lighting on the tower lights on top of the building, but that ended up being too expensive.
We could have had some solar, we looked at putting up some wind projects, but instead we focused on energy efficiency because reducing energy use is much cheaper and more efficient than adding renewables.
What is the balance between profitability and reducing emissions?
You can always save more carbon. We could retrofit all buildings to be net zero energy. The technologies exist. But now it is only profitable to get 40 to 50 percent energy savings. The longer term question is how we drive down the costs of new technologies to drive energy savings higher.
We found a tipping point where you are sacrificing too much value to get more energy savings. By coordinating with the regular equipment replacement cycle, these energy savings only need to justify the incremental capital costs.
What lessons have you learned from this project?
The number one lesson is that some buildings are ripe for retrofit and some are not. Buildings that need equipment replaced anyway are those you want to target first, buildings 30 years old with systems from the 1970s.
Another lesson is there is a gap in software and analysis tools to help people navigate this. We need analysis tools to help people do this more quickly.
Are green buildings becoming more more attractive to tenants?
Green buildings have lower vacancy rates, higher productivity, and higher tenant satisfaction.
Indoor air quality is the reason. If you feel better you are more likely to come to work, and using healthier materials and increased ventilation contributes to that. Also, studies connect daylight and views, natural lighting versus fluorescent lighting, to greater productivity.
A big element is corporate social responsibility. A lot of tenants are either part of large corporations or part of government and so have to meet certain requirements.
This is clearly being recognized in the market. More tenants are interested, forcing building owners to think about it.
But where tenants have no stake in the building, and owners do not pay the bills, there is no incentive for either to make the building greener.
That incentive issue is a huge problem and organizations are coming up with “green leases” which attempt to split capital costs more equally.
Imagine you are paying 50 dollars a month for electricity. Through upgrading the lighting system the building owner reduces your costs by five dollars. He can then charge you five dollars to cover the investment. Your bill stays the same until the capital is paid off. After that your costs fall, while the owner has a building worth more.
Which is more popular now, retrofitting or building new green buildings?
The biggest concern now in the U.S. is the recession. And because new commercial construction has come to a halt people are thinking about how to retrofit their existing assets.
On the other hand, in the private sector it is still difficult to get financing for retrofits. But in the public sector there is lots of stimulus money to retrofit federal and local government-owned buildings, which is about 20 percent of the total commercial stock in the U.S.
By the year 2030, over 60 percent of the existing building stock will still be in heavy use. Unlike with the automobile stock, we can’t wait for new green buildings to be developed.
editor: James Tulloch
publishing date: September 14, 2009
Do you have something interesting to add? Write a comment and discuss this topic with other readers. Comments should be on-topic, non-commercial, and not contain abuse of any kind.
Comment Policy
project was a team effort
Generally when discussing the Empire State Building energy retrofit, we make a point to credit all the key players, including Clinton Climate Initiative, the convening partner; Johnson...