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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Better sustainability assessment of green buildings with high-frequency data


Reducing electricity consumption through green building certification is one key strategy for achieving environmental sustainability. Traditional assessments of the environmental benefits of green buildings rely on electricity consumption data at an aggregated level (such as monthly). Using such data can bias assessment results because marginal emissions factors vary throughout the day. We use panel data on hourly energy usage at the individual-building level from 2013–2016 in Arizona to provide a more accurate sustainability assessment for green buildings. For both Energy Star and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design buildings, our estimated savings suggest that the majority of electricity savings in summer happen during electric load system peak hours. The estimated hourly savings and hourly marginal emissions damages reveal additional environmental gains in green-certified buildings. We show that traditional methods that ignore the intra-day timing of savings can underestimate the environmental benefit of green commercial buildings by 95%. We also demonstrate that our findings can be generalized to a broader geographical context.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Fig. 1: Intra-day electricity savings by hour using a subsample with both pre- and post-treatment hourly consumption data.
Fig. 2: Marginal damages for the WECC (in US dollars from the year 2000) from carbon and air emissions by hour of day.
Fig. 3: Comparison of avoided environmental damages from CO2, SO2, NOX and particulate matter calculated using hourly electricity savings versus aggregate savings.
Fig. 4: Avoided environmental damages by industry type.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The weather data are available from NOAA at The Energy Star data are available from The LEED data are available from The high-frequency electricity data that support the findings of this study are available from the SRP, but restrictions apply to their availability. These data were used under a non-disclosure agreement in the current study, and so are not publicly available. However, they are available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission from the SRP.


  1. Electricity in the United States (US Energy Information Administration, 2017);

  2. Massetti, E. et al. Environmental Quality and the US Power Sector: Air Quality, Land Use and Environmental Justice (US Department of Energy Office of Science and Technical Information, 2017);

  3. Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (US Energy Information Administration, 2018);

  4. Liang, J. et al. Do energy retrofits work? Evidence from commercial and residential buildings in Phoenix. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. (in the press).

  5. Lstiburek, J. W. Why green can be wash. ASHRAE J. 50, 28–36 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Scofield, J. H. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really. Energy Build. 41, 1386–1390 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Scofield, J. H. Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission for large New York City office buildings. Energy Build. 67, 517–524 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Frankel, C. T. M. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings—Final Report (New Buildings Institute, 2008).

  9. Menassa, C., Mangasarian, S., El Asmar M. & Kirar, C. Energy consumption evaluation of US Navy LEED-certified buildings. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 26, 46–53 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L. & Morgan, M. G. Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 4742–4748 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Koomey, J. & Brown, R. E. The Role of Building Technologies in Reducing and Controlling Peak Electricity Demand (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2002).

  12. Steinfeld, J., Bruce, A. & Watt, M. Peak load characteristics of Sydney office buildings and policy recommendations for peak load reduction. Energy Build. 43, 2179–2187 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jessoe, K. & Rapson, D. Commercial and industrial demand response under mandatory time-of-use electricity pricing. J. Ind. Econ. 63, 397–421 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Qiu, Y., Kirkeide, L. & Wang, Y. D. Effects of voluntary time-of-use pricing on summer electricity usage of business customers. Environ. Resour. Econ. 69, 417–440 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. How Many Smart Meters are Installed in the United States, and Who Has Them? (US Energy Information Administration, 2016);

  16. Cooper, A. Utility-Scale Smart Meter Deployments: Building Block of the Evolving Power Grid (Institute for Electric Innovation, 2014).

  17. Metoyer, J. & Dzvova, M. Expanding the Value of AMI Data for Energy Efficiency Savings Estimation in California (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2014).

  18. Boomhower, J. P. & Davis, L. W. Do Energy Efficiency Investments Deliver at the Right Time? (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017);

  19. Novan, K. & Smith, A. The incentive to overinvest in energy efficiency: evidence from hourly smart-meter data. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 5, 577–605 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Burlig, F., Knittel, C., Rapson, D., Reguant, M. & Wolfram, C. Machine Learning from Schools about Energy Efficiency (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017);

  21. Smith, N. New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 34, 427–450 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Five of the Nation’s Eleven Fastest-Growing Cities are in Texas, Census Bureau Reports (United States Census Bureau, 2016);

  23. Fowlie, M., Holland, S. P. & Mansur, E. T. What do emissions markets deliver and to whom? Evidence from Southern California’s NOx trading program. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 965–993 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shah, D. J. Enthalpy based thermal comfort controller. US patent 5675979A (1997).

  25. Maheshwari, G. P., Al-Ragom, F. & Suri, R. K. Energy-saving potential of an indirect evaporative cooler. Appl. Energy 69, 69–76 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Holland, S. P., Mansur, E. T., Muller, N. Z. & Yates, A. J. Are there environmental benefits from driving electric vehicles? The importance of local factors. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 3700–3729 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chau, C.-K., Tse, M. S. & Chung, K. Y. A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Build. Environ. 45, 2553–2561 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Altomonte, S. & Schiavon, S. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Build. Environ. 68, 66–76 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Heerwagen, J. Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity. Build. Res. Inf. 28, 353–367 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh, A., Syal, M., Grady, S. C. & Korkmaz, S. Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity. Am. J. Public Health 100, 1665–1668 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brown, M. A. & Southworth, F. Mitigating climate change through green buildings and smart growth. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 40, 653–675 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R. & Pauleit, S. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ. 33, 115–133 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants (US Energy Information Administration, 2016);

  34. Berkhout, P. H. G., Muskens, J. C. & W. Velthuijsen, J. Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 28, 425–432 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Greening, L. A., Greene, D. L. & Difiglio, C. Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy Policy 28, 389–401 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gillingham, K., Kotchen, M. J., Rapson, D. S. & Wagner, G. Energy policy: the rebound effect is overplayed. Nature 493, 475–476 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gillingham, K., Rapson, D. & Wagner, G. The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10, 68–88 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Levinson, A. How much energy do building energy codes save? Evidence from California houses. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 2867–2894 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Linden, A. & Samuels, S. J. Using balance statistics to determine the optimal number of controls in matching studies. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 19, 968–975 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rubin, D. B. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 2, 169–188 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. The 2013–2014 Resource Adequacy Report (California Public Utilities Commission, 2015).

Download references


Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1757329. We thank A. Dock, L. Grant, M. Roberts and H. Bryan for helpful comments during preparation of this paper, and X. Bo for help with collecting the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Y.Q. secured project funding, collected and cleaned the data, and conducted the statistical modelling. Y.Q. and M.E.K. designed the study, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yueming Qiu or Matthew E. Kahn.

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.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Figures 1–11, Supplementary Tables 1–10

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qiu, Y., Kahn, M.E. Better sustainability assessment of green buildings with high-frequency data. Nat Sustain 1, 642–649 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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