Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The impact of mandatory energy audits on building energy use


Cities are increasingly adopting energy policies that reduce information asymmetries and knowledge gaps through data transparency, including energy disclosure and mandatory audit requirements for existing buildings. Although such audits impose non-trivial costs on building owners, their energy use impacts have not been empirically evaluated. Here we examine the effect of a large-scale mandatory audit policy—New York City’s Local Law 87—on building energy use, using detailed audit and energy data between 2011 and 2016 for approximately 4,000 buildings. This specific policy context, in which the compliance year is randomly assigned, provides a unique opportunity to explore the audit effect without the self-selection bias found in studies of voluntary audit policies. We find energy use reductions of approximately –2.5% for multifamily residential buildings and –4.9% for office buildings. The results suggest that mandatory audits, by themselves, create an insufficient incentive to invest in energy efficiency at the scale needed to meet citywide carbon-reduction goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: EUI distribution pre-, during and postaudit period.
Fig. 2: Audit coefficient distribution (multifamily housing).
Fig. 3: Audit coefficient distribution (office).

Data availability

All data, except LL87 data, are available through the NYC Open Data Portal at LL87 data are available upon reasonable request, and with permission, from the NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. The data that support the plots within this Article and other findings of this study can be obtained from the NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability or the authors, upon permission from the NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability who own the data.

Code availability

Any applicable code relevant to the findings is available from the authors upon reasonable request.


  1. Glaeser, E. L. & Kahn, M. E. The greenness of cities: carbon dioxide emissions and urban development. J. Urban Econ. 67, 404–418 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions (City of New York, 2017);

  3. Burr, A., Keicher, C. & Lawrence, J. Commercial Building Energy Rating and Disclosure Policies (Institute for Market Transformation, 2013).

  4. Jaffe, A. B. & Stavins, R. N. The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy 22, 804–810 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Map: U.S. City, County, and State Policies for Existing Buildings: Benchmarking, Transparency and Beyond (Institute for Market Transformation, 2017);

  6. LL87: energy audits & retro-commissioning NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (2020).

  7. New York City’s Energy and Water Use 2014 and 2015 Report (City of New York, 2017);

  8. Meng, T., Hsu, D. & Han, A. Estimating energy savings from benchmarking policies in New York City. Energy 133, 415–423 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Palmer, K. & Walls, M. Using information to close the energy efficiency gap: a review of benchmarking and disclosure ordinances. Energy Effic. 10, 673–691 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Papadopoulos, S., Bonczak, B. & Kontokosta, C. E. Pattern recognition in building energy performance over time using energy benchmarking data. Appl. Energy 221, 576–586 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hsu, D. How much information disclosure of building energy performance is necessary? Energy Policy 64, 263–272 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Spiegel-Feld, D. Local Law 97: Emissions trading for buildings? NYU Law Review Online 94, 148–168 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chidiac, S., Catania, E., Morofsky, E. & Foo, S. Effectiveness of single and multiple energy retrofit measures on the energy consumption of office buildings. Energy 36, 5037–5052 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ardente, F., Beccali, M., Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M. Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15, 460–470 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hestnes, A. G. & Kofoed, N. U. Effective retrofitting scenarios for energy efficiency and comfort: results of the design and evaluation activities within the office project. Build. Environ. 37, 569–574 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L. D. D., Mirasgedis, S. & Levine, M. D. Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world’s buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 35, 379–398 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Use of Energy in the United States Explained (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017);

  18. Nadel, S. Pathway to Cutting Energy Use and Carbon Emissions in Half (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2016).

  19. Bradshaw, J. L., Bou-Zeid, E. & Harris, R. H. Greenhouse gas mitigation benefits and cost-effectiveness of weatherization treatments for low-income, American, urban housing stocks. Energy Buildings 128, 911–920 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fulton, M. et al. United States Building Energy Efficiency Retrofits: Market Sizing and Financing Models (Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, 2012).

  21. Chidiac, S., Catania, E., Morofsky, E. & Foo, S. A screening methodology for implementing cost effective energy retrofit measures in Canadian office buildings. Energy Build. 43, 614–620 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Im, J., Seo, Y., Cetin, K. S. & Singh, J. Energy efficiency in US residential rental housing: adoption rates and impact on rent. Appl. Energy 205, 1021–1033 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ryghaug, M. & Sørensen, K. H. How energy efficiency fails in the building industry. Energy Policy 37, 984–991 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hirst, E. & Brown, M. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resour Conserv. Recycl. 3, 267–281 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gillingham, K. and Palmer, K. Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap Discussion paper 13–02 (Resources for the Future, 2013).

  26. Kontokosta, C. E. Energy disclosure, market behavior, and the building data ecosystem. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1295, 34–43 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hope, A. J. & Booth, A. Attitudes and behaviours of private sector landlords towards the energy efficiency of tenanted homes. Energy Policy 75, 369–378 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Elbel, B., Kersh, R., Brescoll, V. L. & Dixon, L. B. Calorie labeling and food choices: a first look at the effects on low-income people in New York City. Health Affairs 28, w1110–w1121 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davis, L. W. & Metcalf, G. E. Does better information lead to better choices? Evidence from energy-efficiency labels. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3, 589–625 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S. & Birt, B. J. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but. Energy Build. 41, 897–905 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kontokosta, C. E. A market-specific methodology for a commercial building energy performance index. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 51, 288–316 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Niemeyer, S. Consumer voices: adoption of residential energy-efficient practices. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 34, 140–145 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kontokosta, C. E. Modeling the energy retrofit decision in commercial office buildings. Energy Build. 131, 1–20 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laskari, M., Karatasou, S. & Santamouris, M. The design of an energy and water advice programme for low-income households. Energy Build. 110, 426–434 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kontokosta, C. E., Reina, V. J. & Bonczak, B. Energy cost burdens for low-income and minority households: evidence from energy benchmarking and audit data in five US cities. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 86, 89–105 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Santamouris, M. et al. On the relation between the energy and social characteristics of the residential sector. Energy Build. 39, 893–905 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bird, S. & Hernandez, S. Policy options for the split incentive: increasing energy efficiency for low-income renters. Energy Policy 48, 506–514 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reina, V. J. & Kontokosta, C. E. Low hanging fruit? Regulations and energy efficiency in subsidized multifamily housing. Energy Policy 106, 505–513 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ramos, A., Gago, A., Labandeira, X. & Linares, P. The role of information for energy efficiency in the residential sector. Energy Econ. 52, S17–S29 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mims, N. et al. Evaluation of US Building Energy Benchmarking and Transparency Programs: Attributes, Impacts, and Best Practices (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2017).

  41. Jensen, O. M., Hansen, A. R. & Kragh, J. Market response to the public display of energy performance rating at property sales. Energy Policy 93, 229–235 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fuerst, F. & McAllister, P. Eco-labeling in commercial office markets: do LEED and energy star offices obtain multiple premiums? Ecol. Econ. 70, 1220–1230 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Anderson, S. T. & Newell, R. G. Information programs for technology adoption: the case of energy-efficiency audits. Resour. Energy Econ. 26, 27–50 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fleiter, T., Gruber, E., Eichhammer, W. & Worrell, E. The German energy audit program for firms—a cost-effective way to improve energy efficiency? Energy Effic. 5, 447–469 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Annunziata, E., Rizzi, F. & Frey, M. Enhancing energy efficiency in public buildings: the role of local energy audit programmes. Energy Policy 69, 364–373 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Murphy, L. The influence of energy audits on the energy efficiency investments of private owner-occupied households in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 65, 398–407 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Baechler, M.C. A Guide to Energy Audits PNNL-20956 (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2011).

  48. Varone, S. & Varsalona, P. Complying with Local Law 87/09 (Rand Engineering and Architecture, 2018);

  49. Estimating Fuel Mix and Energy Cost (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018);

  50. Krutwig, M. C. & Tantău, A. Obligatory versus voluntary energy audits: are there differences in quality?. Proc. Int. Conf. Bus. Excellence 12, 522–532 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shapiro, I. 10 common problems in energy audits. ASHRAE J. 53, 26–31 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  52. One City Built to Last (City of New York, 2014);

  53. Nair, G., Gustavsson, L. & Mahapatra, K. Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy 38, 2956–2963 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Harris, J., Anderson, J. & Shafron, W. Investment in energy efficiency: a survey of Australian firms. Energy Policy 28, 867–876 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Marasco, D. E. & Kontokosta, C. E. Applications of machine learning methods to identifying and predicting building retrofit opportunities. Energy Build. 128, 431–441 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Papadopoulos, S. & Kontokosta, C. E. Grading buildings on energy performance using city benchmarking data. Appl, Energy 233, 244–253 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Energy Star Portfolio Manager: Climate and Weather Technical reference (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2019).

  58. Kontokosta, C. E. & Tull, C. A data-driven predictive model of city-scale energy use in buildings. Appl. Energy 197, 303–317 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Efron, B. Bayesians frequentists, and scientists. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100, 1–5 (2005).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Clark, J. S. Why environmental scientists are becoming Bayesians. Ecol. Lett. 8, 2–14 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Murphy, K. P. Machine Learning: a Probabilistic Perspective (MIT press, 2012).

  62. Gelman, A. et al. Bayesian Data Analysis (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2013).

  63. Hoffman, M. D. & Gelman, A. The No-U-Turn Sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 1593–1623 (2014).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Hyndman, R. J. Computing and graphing highest density regions. Am. Stat. 50, 120–126 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Dehejia, R. H. & Wahba, S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev. Econ. Stat. 84, 151–161 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin, D. B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55 (1983).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability for sharing the LL84 benchmarking and LL87 energy audit data used in this study. We also thank participants at the ‘Next Generation Building Efficiency Policies’ workshop hosted by the NYU Law School and NYU Marron Institute for their feedback on preliminary versions of this work, and K. Hoffman for useful discussions on methodology. The research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant no. 1653773 and by the Sloan Foundation. All errors remain our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All the authors contributed equally to all aspects of the work presented in this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constantine E. Kontokosta.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kontokosta, C.E., Spiegel-Feld, D. & Papadopoulos, S. The impact of mandatory energy audits on building energy use. Nat Energy 5, 309–316 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing