Interesting article in Law360 on increasing role of benchmarking. The full article is at http://environmental.law360.com/print_article/132223 (Subscription is required). Here are some excerpts:

“This is a big deal,” said Cliff Majersik, executive director of the Institute for Market Transformation, a nonprofit environmental group that takes a market-based approach to energy efficiency issues. “In a tight economy and with tight government budgets, this policy is one of the most powerful policies that any jurisdiction can put in place to improve the economy, create jobs and improve the environment at the same time.”

There are terrific rates of return on commercial building energy efficiency retrofits, which is the next step after benchmarking, far better than one can generally get from stocks or bonds, he added.

Benchmarking won't lay out landlords' options for enhancing energy efficiency or, necessarily, help them to calculate what the cost savings might be. However, once building owners tally up and compare their energy use, they can then reduce that use significantly at little to no upfront cost, according to Tusa.

Wayne Tusa, president of the environmental consulting firm Environmental Risk, said building owners and operators are beginning to realize benchmarking is something they should do not for ethical reasons but because it's cost-effective.

“This benchmarking process allows them to look at their portfolios and say, 'Oh, my God, the guy down the street is using 30 percent less energy than me,'” he said.

“There's no way to stop wasting energy unless you first start looking for ways to save, and benchmarking is all about starting looking,” said Lane Burt, an energy policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“There's no reason to be wasting money daily just because you haven't done your due diligence,” he added.

Because tenants usually pay the electricity bill, landlords don't have as much incentive to measure their emissions and perform retrofits, according to Majersik. He added that there was still a lack of information out there, and as a result it was hard for the market to value energy efficiency.

“It doesn't mandate anything but disclosure,” Majersik said. “You can disclose a 1, which is the worst possible rating ... and there are no consequences for that, other than that other people will know your rating.”