The Records Problem Quietly Undermining Building Decarbonization
Missing, persistent building records that undermine decarbonization
RECORDKEEPING: Without reliable records, building owners struggle to prove energy improvements, comply with regulations, and access incentives.
A growing number of American cities and states require commercial buildings to report how much energy they use and, increasingly, what owners plan to do about it. Since Washington, D.C., and Austin became the first U.S. cities to mandate energy disclosure in 2008, at least 54 additional cities, counties, and states have adopted similar ordinances, and more than 40 jurisdictions now operate active benchmarking or building performance programs. The penalties attached to these requirements are no longer symbolic. For example, Boston's emissions ordinance can fine noncompliant nonresidential buildings up to $1,000 per day for missing performance standards, and up to $268 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted above a building's annual allowance.
Early-Stage Disclosures
This regulatory landscape is also changing in character, not just in geography. Many of the earliest ordinances only required owners to publish basic energy data each year—a simple disclosure exercise. A growing share of jurisdictions now go further, tying specific reduction targets and penalties to a building's actual performance over time. Colorado's statewide Building Performance program is a clear example, requiring covered commercial, multifamily, and public buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent by 2026 and 20 percent by 2030 against a 2021 baseline.
No Persistent Historical Building Records
These dollar figures and targets draw attention, but they obscure a more basic problem. Most building owners are not struggling because they refuse to upgrade; they are struggling because they cannot produce a reliable, continuous record of how a building has actually performed over time: which systems were replaced, when, and what measurable difference the change made.
This gap matters because heating and cooling systems alone account for roughly 61 percent of energy use in a typical commercial building, making HVAC the single largest lever available in most efficiency retrofits. The same problem extends across lighting, envelope work, building automation, water efficiency, and onsite renewables – each requiring its own baseline to demonstrate improvement.
Without a documented starting point, contractors hesitate to commit to performance guarantees, facility teams cannot prove to auditors or city agencies that targets are being met even when real improvements have occurred, and owners pursuing rebates or tax incentives tied to verified savings often discover the paperwork required to support a claim simply does not exist. In some cases, that gap means forfeiting incentives worth far more than the cost of the recordkeeping that would have preserved eligibility in the first place.
Lacking Support for Financial Statements
Pressure is also building from a different direction. Chief financial officers and institutional lenders increasingly expect sustainability and facilities teams to produce energy and carbon data with the rigor applied to financial statements. Investors are now pushing companies to provide audited ESG data that matches the rigor of financial reporting, and frameworks such as the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive already require limited assurance on sustainability data today, with that standard rising to the same level of reasonable assurance applied to financial audits by 2028. A spreadsheet assembled once a year from utility bills and estimates rarely survives that level of scrutiny. The result is a widening gap between what owners are being asked to prove and what their existing records actually allow them to demonstrate.
Capital Markets and Financing Implications
Pressure is also emerging from capital providers. Lenders, insurers, institutional investors, and sustainability-linked financing programs increasingly rely on verified building performance and emissions data when evaluating risk, underwriting decisions, incentive eligibility, and investment opportunities. Buildings with fragmented or unverifiable records may face higher financing costs, reduced access to incentives, increased diligence requirements, or difficulty demonstrating compliance with sustainability commitments. As a result, the quality of a building’s historical records is becoming a financial consideration, not simply an operational one.
Compounded With Multiple Structures
A related identification problem compounds matters at the building level itself. Many commercial parcels contain multiple distinct structures – sometimes dozens – under a single street address, yet permits, inspections, and compliance filings are typically logged against that address rather than the individual structure they describe. Without a way to track a structure's history independent of changing ownership or address conventions, even accurate documentation can become unusable over time, which leaves owners and city agencies arguing over which building a given record was ever meant to describe.
Infrastructure Continuity and Lifecycle Record-Keeping
As buildings become increasingly regulated, digitized, and performance-driven, the industry may need to rethink how it manages historical records altogether. Energy performance, system upgrades, maintenance activity, inspections, and compliance documentation are all becoming long-term operational assets. Yet most buildings still lack a persistent mechanism for maintaining continuity of records throughout the asset lifecycle. As reporting, financing, and compliance requirements continue to expand, infrastructure identity, record continuity, and verifiable lifecycle histories may become as foundational to building operations as financial recordkeeping is to corporate governance.
None of this argues against retrofitting or against the compliance deadlines now arriving across dozens of jurisdictions. It argues for treating a building's historical performance record as essential infrastructure, not paperwork assembled after the fact. Design and build firms, facility managers, and commercial real estate owners hoping to avoid stalled retrofit projects, failed audits, and accumulating fines should start with a more basic question than which upgrade to pursue next: can this building's energy and system history actually be verified, traced, and trusted over time? For a large share of the commercial building stock today, the honest answer is no, and that gap—more than the cost of any single upgrade—is what is slowing the broader push toward decarbonized, compliant, and financeable buildings. Closing it will take better recordkeeping practices long before it takes another retrofit.
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!
