"Over the past 20 to 30 years, every important building component has improved in energy performance. From air conditioners to lighting to windows, construction crews today have an array of green technologies at their disposal.
Once they're put together, though, the finished building performs no better than its predecessors of two or three decades ago. The parts have gotten better, but not the whole."

They argue that the parties who construct a building have a prisoner dilemma - like situation, when they each go to work: "None of them wants to be responsible for a building that is too hot or stuffy, can't heat its water or is too dim. So when each party gets to his part of the blueprint, he leaves no room for doubt. A 100-ton chiller becomes a 150-ton chiller, which will never be maxed out and will always operate below its peak efficiency. As for the windows, they may be three times more energy-efficient than their predecessors. Still, the architect asks for three times more windows than the average building has because it looks sleeker."

They are in year 1 of a 5-year project with the clear goal to convince local industry to change its ways. Interesting.
They want to retrofit an old building to show that it makes economical sense to have a wholesome energy efficiency design. But they don't seem to tackle the main problem: The ones who build and/or own the building are probably not the ones paying the energy bills. In my eyes, this is the problem with energy efficiency in buildings.