Net zero energy. More profitable than building to code.
We develop carbon neutral, zero net energy buildings with a strong emphasis on the health and wellness of the people inside them, at a price point that is quantifiably more profitable than building to conventional standards.
Sustainability and profitability are not mutually exclusive.
We weave time-tested passive methodologies together with current technology into a fabric of sustainability that is cost effective. Insulation, thermal mass, daylight, and natural ventilation do most of the work. The building's systems harvest what nature gives us for free: light, fresh air, power, and comfort.
What zero net energy means.
Zero net energy
A building that generates all of the power it uses, on site, from renewable sources. Solar, wind, geothermal.
Operationally carbon neutral
An all-electric building. No carbon-based fuel is burned to run it, whether the power is made on the roof or bought from off-site renewables.
A net zero energy bill
The economic goal. On an annual billing cycle, the electric bill at the end of the year is $0. Our buildings generate about 80 percent of what they use and the utility's rate structure does the rest.
Why don't developers renovate existing buildings to zero net energy, with health and wellness in mind?
- It's too expensive.
- It may not work. It's too risky.
- Development is hard enough as it is. Why add another level of complexity?
- I've done fine doing things the way I've always done them.
Every one of those is an economic objection, so the answer has to be economic.
The payback.
At 435 Indio Way, renovating to our goals instead of to code added $49.84 a square foot to the cost. Had the building been sold the day after occupancy, at a 6.5 percent market capitalization rate, that work had added this much to its value:
- Actual operating expense savings, $0.45 a square foot a month
- $89.78
- Above-market rent achieved, $0.20 a square foot a month
- $36.92
- Rent from leasing in 3 months instead of the market's 18
- $22.81
- Leasable area gained from six inches of exterior insulation
- $7.32
- Additional value the day after occupancy, per square foot
- $100.29
- Not counted above: lower reserve requirements for HVAC and tenant improvements
- $29.85
A 21 percent quantifiable real estate return on the $49.84 investment, 2.01 times the money. Counting what the tenant gains from a healthier building, 58 percent and 7.59 times. How the finance pencils →
Why zero net energy.
For building ownership
- Significantly more profitable than building to code
- Less maintenance and property management
- A new class of building stock, which reduces leasing risk
- More adaptable to changes in use
- Long-term financial stability
For tenants
- Insulated from rate increases; expenses stabilized
- Healthier, more productive employees
- A recruiting tool for sought-after talent
- Operational differentiation from competitors
- A more resilient, adaptable workplace
- Progress on ESG goals, and the image of a good corporate citizen
Six buildings in California, all of them zero net energy.
Every one is an existing building, renovated rather than replaced. Together they are about 245,000 square feet that produce as much energy as they use.
