Once the client has agreed that indoor conditions under a natural ventilation scheme would be acceptable and that the target tenants would have enough personal freedom to adjust devices and clothing and that the cost of ownership is manageable, the conversation of comfort versus energy use can be further explored in greater detail

The California Energy Commission funded a study to determine the energy savings benefits of applying natural ventilation in the state. Linden, Arens and Daisiais a comprehensive study of the “benefits and bartiers to retrofitting California commercial buildings with natural or mixed mode ventilation for cooling” . The study found that energy savings for retrofitting natural ventilation in conjunction with aggressive conventional energy savings (power and lightkog energy use reduction, ceiling fans external shades, increased insulation and enrrly air tempera t ure ranling energy by 44% in pre 2008 buildings, but acknowledged that only 25% of that is due to the natural ventilation itself after the other measures are applied

When evenined by California climate zone, the aggrese measures and natural ventilation packages average about 5% to 6% return on investment for large and medium offices but struggle to reach 4% for most small offices. Chen Augenbroe and Song have a similar simulation-based exercise across four U.S. climate zones for small and medium offices, estimating the potential for a 17% mean energy savings in Atlanta, 19.7% in Seattle, 43.8% in San Francisco and 42.9% in Los Angeles,