Designing Labs for Energy Efficiency and Institutional Climate Goals

Laboratories have long been among the most energy-intensive buildings on campus or within a research portfolio. Between high air-change rates, specialized equipment, process loads, and around-the-clock operations, reducing energy consumption has never been a simple task. Yet as institutions pursue ambitious climate commitments and face mounting pressure to control operating costs, energy efficiency alone is no longer enough.

Today’s laboratory leaders are operating in a fundamentally different energy landscape—one characterized by volatile utility markets, rising capacity costs, increasing electrification, and growing concerns about grid reliability. As a result, successful sustainability strategies require a broader perspective that connects building design, operational efficiency, energy procurement, and resiliency planning.

Historically, many organizations have treated these issues as separate conversations. Sustainability teams focused on reducing energy use and carbon emissions, while procurement teams negotiated utility contracts and managed energy purchasing. According to Shea Diehl, product manager with Thrive Buildings, that disconnect can create significant challenges.

“When efficiency and procurement don’t talk and plan together, lab managers end up misvaluing the energy they save,” Diehl says.

The traditional practice of measuring savings using a blended utility rate may no longer reflect the realities of modern energy markets. Electricity prices increasingly fluctuate based on time of use, grid demand, and capacity constraints. As Diehl explains, “not all kilowatt-hours (kWh) are worth the same.”

A kilowatt-hour saved during off-peak overnight hours may have relatively little financial impact compared to one avoided during a summer afternoon when the grid is strained and prices spike. Without understanding how energy is purchased and priced, organizations risk overstating or understating the value of efficiency investments and may make budgeting decisions based on incomplete information.

This challenge becomes particularly relevant as many institutions pursue all-electric laboratory designs to support decarbonization goals. Electrified heating systems, heat-pump technologies, and electric chillers can significantly reduce carbon emissions while improving overall efficiency. However, increased reliance on electricity also exposes facilities to rising utility costs and capacity charges.

“Electric boilers and chillers are huge wins toward decarbonization and efficiency goals,” says Diehl, “but the skyrocketing price of electricity and increased electric footprint leads to an outsized operating cost which has leadership second-guessing their sustainability methods in favor of lower bills.”

For laboratory planners, this highlights an important reality: energy efficiency and carbon reduction strategies cannot be evaluated independently from long-term operating costs.

At the same time, rising capacity charges are changing the economics of energy resilience technologies. In many regions, capacity costs have increased dramatically, prompting organizations to revisit investments in battery energy storage systems (BESS), microgrids, and demand-response programs.

“The math changes dramatically,” Diehl says. “A battery used to be hard to justify based on energy savings alone, but that is beginning to change with the unprecedented rate hikes we’ve seen in key markets.”

Battery systems can reduce costs by discharging during critical peak-demand periods that determine annual utility charges. In addition, participation in demand-response programs can generate new revenue streams while helping utilities manage grid stress.

For laboratory environments, the benefits extend beyond utility savings. Research activities, environmental chambers, cold storage, and critical experiments often cannot tolerate interruptions.

“The added resilience batteries bring is also crucial for critical environments like laboratories, to ensure experiments and freezers run through outages uninterrupted,” Diehl notes.

These considerations underscore the growing importance of understanding a facility’s actual demand profile. Real-time energy monitoring and analytics can provide insight into peak loads, operational baselines, and consumption patterns. That information not only helps identify efficiency opportunities but can also strengthen an organization’s position when negotiating energy supply contracts.

“Choosing the right energy product is about understanding your load shape, and the assumptions your supplier makes about that shape,” says Diehl.

As laboratories implement efficiency measures and modernize infrastructure, their energy profiles evolve. Procurement strategies that made sense five years ago may no longer be optimal. Continuous evaluation helps ensure that sustainability gains are not offset by unfavorable purchasing arrangements.

The challenge, of course, is convincing stakeholders to invest in integrated energy strategies during planning and construction phases, when budgets are already under pressure. Facility leaders often encounter resistance when proposed investments increase upfront project costs.

One way forward is to leverage financing mechanisms such as utility incentives, energy-as-a-service models, shared-savings agreements, and rebates. These approaches can reduce capital requirements while accelerating adoption of advanced technologies.

Equally important is shifting the conversation away from first costs and toward lifecycle performance.

“Unmanaged exposure to drastically increasing energy prices is a very real, growing cost, not a neutral baseline,” Diehl says.

For laboratory owners, the cost of inaction may be just as significant as the cost of implementing new technologies. A facility designed solely around minimum construction costs may struggle with rising utility expenses, carbon-reduction mandates, and resilience challenges for decades.

The most successful organizations are increasingly adopting what Diehl describes as a “total energy management” approach—one that integrates efficiency, procurement, demand management, resilience, and carbon reduction into a coordinated strategy.

The result is not simply lower energy consumption. It is greater operational predictability, improved financial stability, and increased flexibility to adapt to future market conditions.

“In an energy market that is increasingly expensive and unpredictable, total energy management buys you operational predictability,” Diehl says.

As laboratories continue to evolve, energy strategy must evolve alongside them. Designing for sustainability is no longer just about reducing consumption. It is about creating facilities that can simultaneously meet climate commitments, control operating costs, and remain resilient in an increasingly complex energy future.