Context: multi-building SRL seeking profitability

Notre client est une SCI real estate company tertiary exploitant un portfolio de trois immeubles pour un total de 12,000 m² leased. Offices, commercial spaces and services: a classic mix, with annual energy bill of 380,000€.

Like many asset managers, this company sought to optimize its energy balance — not for ecological conviction, but for improve rental margins and asset value. The Tertiary Decree and AGEC also made this action inevitable by 2030.

Initial request: a reductive approach

Le directeur patrimonial a reçu une première approche d'un installateur solar proposant un project clé-en-main : 800 kWc of rooftop PV, representing a 640,000€ investment for estimated annual savings of 55,000€.

Simple IRR: 11.6 years. Client verdict: "It's too long. We're looking for better."

That's when the CEO contacted us. Their intuition was right: why limit yourself to solar when the three buildings consumed energy inefficiently on other accounts?

Our method: parallel analysis of 5 solutions

Nous avons lancé une study indépendante couvrant les trois sites simultanément, en examinant :

• Complete LED lighting — 3,800 light points, 35% of lighting consumption
• Centralized building management (BMS) — thermostat, HVAC, automated lighting
• Rooftop photovoltaic — realistic sizing per site
• Mobilisation CEE — Energy Saving Certificates (TV programs, comprehensive renovation)
• Energy contract audit — tariff and capacity renegotiation

Each lever was studied independently, then in combination to identify synergies and double-counting risks.

The results: a combination far superior to the sum of its parts

What made the difference

Three factors explain why our analysis went beyond the installer's initial approach:

1. Analysis independence

L'installateur PV optimisait son chiffre d'affaires, pas les gains du client. Nous avons pu recommander un dimensionnement PV plus modeste (650 kWc au lieu de 800) parce que d'autres leviers offraient un IRR supérieur. Résultat : une meilleure allocation capitale.

2. Combined approach, not additive

La BMS réduit la consumption de base before même que le PV injecte. Les LED baissent les appels de puissance. Additionner naïvement les gains aurait mené à une surestimation. Nous avons modélisé l'interaction réelle.

3. CEE mobilization

Les Certificats d'saving d'Énergie représentaient 68 000 € de subsidy directe. Aucune des approches commerciales antérieures ne les avait intégrés dans le business plan. Pour la SCI, c'était un gain immédiat qui changeait les flux de trésorerie des années 1-2.

Decision made and presentation to council

Based on these results, the property director proposed a plan d'investissement en trois phases au conseil d'administration :

• Phase 1 (mois 1-3) : lighting LED complet + audit contrats → 135 000 € d'invest, 50 000 € de gains annuels + 40 000 € CEE immédiat
• Phase 2 (mois 4-9) : BMS centralisée + ajustements thermiques → 95 000 € d'invest, 38 000 € de gains annuels
• Phase 3 (mois 10-18) : solar (après qualification des flux réels) → 580 000 € d'invest, 67 000 € de gains annuels + 28 000 € CEE

This sequence had two advantages: autofinancement partiel of later phases by savings of previous phases, and risk reduction by validating each step before moving to the next.

The board unanimously approved.

What the asset director told us

Key lessons for real estate funds

1. Do not delegate energy architecture to a vendor. An installer or energy provider with commercial interest will never optimize your capital allocation.
2. Study solution interactions. LED + BMS + PV create synergies that siloed studies don't capture.
3. Include subsidies in initial planning. CEE are not luck — they are predictable and mobilizable if considered from the analysis stage.
4. Dimensionner progressivement, pas en one-shot. Validating phase by phase reduces financial and technical risk.
5. Measure realistic IRR, not just annual savings. A project that appears expensive can be more profitable than it seems.