Early Replacement vs. Scheduled Maintenance?

Oftentimes, financing early replacement of equipment, coupled with incentives now, may prove to be more cost-effective than waiting until a scheduled replacement of equipment or measures. Consider this case study of a two-story, four building, 77-unit style apartment community — the management team compared the value of A) replacing the window and roof today, taking advantage of energy efficiency incentives, versus B) waiting six years until the scheduled replacement.

CostofDoingNothing

Our calculations showed an annual decrease in utility costs of $9,572.75.

The values above reflect decreased vacancy rates and marketing expenses. Studies indicate that new windows, increased comfort, and lower utility bills result in less turnover. These upgrades not only decrease energy costs, but also decrease vacancy rates and operating costs, and increase a property’s net operating income.

For more information contact TRC Energy Services: 1-866-352-7457 sdmultifamily@trcsolutions.com

 


 

* $182,,305 reflects the total replacement cost after the rebate amount is factored in.

** $317,125 calculated by loss of rebates and a 3% annual escalator on construction costs.

*** NPV of today investment of $182,305 vs. waiting until Year 6 to invest $317,125 over 10-year term.

Summarized financial data complied by Kango Development on behalf of TRC Energy Services. For a complete version of this financial scenario please contact Fran Hereth at 323-627-8291 or fran@kangodevelopment.com.

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: