The building didn't change. The funding landscape did. Here is why an older study is worth a fresh look before your next capital decision.
Your building's last energy study may have quietly lost value this year. Not the building. The study.
An energy study prices your retrofit options against the rebates, utility programs, and cost of capital in place when it was written. That landscape moved in 2026: programs paused, rules changed, limits reset. So the payback math in a two-year-old report is now priced to conditions that no longer exist.
The consequence is about priority, not just numbers. The measure your study ranked third might have the cleanest funding path today, while the one it put first may have lost the program it was counting on. Re-ordering that list can change which project you green-light this year.
This is not an argument for starting over. It is a pass over work you already paid for: re-testing the study you have against today's programs and today's cost of capital, so the recommendations reflect the environment as it stands now, not the one they were written in.
If your study is older than 18 months and you have a capital decision in front of you, close that gap first.