Member Cost Summary Overview Resource

As part of their effort to craft guidance and regulations based on real-world data, the DC Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) asked AOBA to help collect actual cost-of-compliance data associated with projects undertaken and planned to meet Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS). AOBA in turn asked members with properties that need to take action to meet BEPS to share this information. The summary below is based upon data received from AOBA member buildings as of September 3, 2025.

Members provided a mix of project costs (those costs already incurred) and estimated future costs (those costs planned for additional projects). Most estimated future costs came from energy audits. Since these audits did not include construction costs, the below may underestimate actual costs of compliance.

AOBA notes that these costs may not be representative of costs for any buildings in DC that need to take action to meet BEPS. In addition, the construction of DC BEPS, where most buildings implement measures to meet a target in this cycle, followed by a recalculation of the BEPS for the next cycle, is markedly different than the construction of other regional BEPS that use a long-term trajectory approach (e.g., Maryland BEPS or Montgomery County BEPS). DC BEPS costs for Cycle 1 may not be representative of the costs to meet Maryland BEPS, Montgomery County BEPS, or other BEPS outside of the immediate region.

Building Cost Breakdowns

Offices

A total of 14 offices responded. Of these offices:

• 7 (50%) chose Standard Target Pathway as their compliance pathway. This is generally representative of the overall percentage of offices on the Standard Target Pathway.
• 7 (50%) chose Performance Pathway as their compliance pathway. This is generally representative of the overall percentage of offices on the Standard Target Pathway.
• Nearly all offices pursued measures that resulted in electricity savings only. The reason for this appears to be simple: most offices in this data set only use electricity in their base building systems.

Of the properties on the Standard Target Pathway:

• Project costs vary significantly, from $1.41 per square foot (SF) to $20.40 per SF. The primary drivers of this cost were twofold:
  • How far a property is from meeting BEPS
  • If BEPS triggers large-scale mechanical system upgrades
• Estimated energy consumption savings (in kBtu per SF) also varied, from 3.8 kBtu per SF to 20.3 kBtu per SF for properties on this pathway.

Of the properties on the Performance Pathway:

• Project costs again varied significantly, between $0.42 per SF and $28.91 per SF. Similar to the Standard Target Pathway properties, the main driver of costs is if BEPS triggers large-scale mechanical system upgrades.
• Three properties provided a list of estimated measures but did not provide estimated energy savings from implementing these measures. Of the remaining buildings, the estimated kBtu per SF savings is approximately 10-12 kBtu per SF.
• The specifics of the Site EUI – Adjusted to Current Year metric make projection for offices on the Performance Pathway especially difficult; AOBA estimated energy savings based on weather-normalized site EUI but notes that this may not be a wholly accurate representation due to differences between these metrics

Multifamily

A total of 23 multifamily properties responded. Of these multifamily properties:

• 11 (48%) chose Standard Target Pathway as their compliance pathway. This is generally representative of the overall percentage of offices on the Standard Target Pathway.
• 10 (52%) chose Performance Pathway as their compliance pathway. This is generally representative of the overall percentage of offices on the Standard Target Pathway.
• 4 are market-rate rental properties, while the other 19 are in the Affordable Housing Retrofit Accelerator (AHRA). 
• Most provided energy audits that discussed electrification of at least one end use; however, only 2 properties needed to explore it further as a primary method of meeting the BEPS in Cycle 1.

Of the properties on the Standard Target Pathway:

• Compliance costs range from $0.62 per SF to $23.45 per SF.
• Estimated kBtu per SF savings also varied, from 1.9 kBtu per SF to 21.1 kBtu per SF.
  • Note that these kBtu per SF savings include solar as energy savings; on the Standard Target Pathway, onsite solar when used onsite can benefit a project’s source EUI and thus their ENERGY STAR score.
• One property does not have a way to meet their Standard Target without exploring a partial electrification project. This requires an electric load study and likely increases in electric service to the property. These costs are not included in this summary.
• One affordable housing property received substantial assistance from DCSEU, covering approximately 2/3rds of the compliance cost for the property, including an energy audit.

Of the properties on the Performance Pathway:

• Compliance costs range from $2.67 per SF to $27.85 per SF.
• Two properties on this pathway provided cost estimates for measures that appeared similar to other buildings but with far lower costs. AOBA is unsure if these cost estimates (which were not provided from contractors and instead came from energy audits) are an accurate estimate of the actual cost of performing the work.
• The compliance approach for the $2.67 per SF building hinges in part on AOBA’s corrections to the savings calculations being a more accurate representation of expected project performance. (AOBA’s technical staff performed simplified savings calculations based on building information provided in the energy audit  If this is incorrect, the next likely projects for this property are highly invasive, costly envelope measures.
• One properties on this pathway requires a deep retrofit of building mechanical and/or domestic hot water systems to meet BEPS, necessitating the replacement of equipment before the end of its useful life. This drives most of the project costs at this property, although with the caveat that contractor scopes for deeper retrofit work have not been collected. This property has put some thought into what the total project cost would look like; this property also has the highest estimated cost of compliance in this data set.
  • As other properties considering electrification did not provide this supplemental thought, AOBA would reasonably infer that electrification costs are likely understated for other properties. (A second property on this pathway may need to explore electrification if estimated energy savings from the audit overstate actual realized savings.)

What’s not in the data

This data does not include specific project scopes. If a project was completed, actual project cost was used. This analysis also assumes that the pathway chosen by the building is the correct pathway that minimizes overall compliance cost.