"We believe the term 'stranding year' suggested a level of certainty about future financial outcomes that our science-based tool does not and should not predict. By introducing the term 'CRREM Misalignment Year,' we more accurately communicate what our tool measures." — Andrea Palmer, CEO
One year ago today, we communicated that we would be saying goodbye to the term “stranding” and welcomed the new term “misalignment.”
Old habits die hard. For years, “stranding year” rolled off the tongue easily in every transition risk conversation, pitch deck, and due diligence memo across the market. So it’s no surprise that, a year on, we’re still hearing it in meetings, reading it in reports, and seeing it in LinkedIn posts.
But we’d love for that to change. Here’s a friendly refresher on why we made the switch, and why we’d be so pleased if you joined us in leaving the old term behind for good.
A Quick Recap
Last year, CRREM retired the term “stranding year” and introduced its replacement: the CRREM Misalignment Year. The methodology didn’t change. The underlying pathways, thresholds, and calculations are exactly as robust and science-based as ever. What changed was the language we use to describe what that number actually tells you.
The CRREM Misalignment Year marks the first year in which a building or portfolio’s carbon or energy intensity is projected to exceed carbon or energy intensities of the CRREM Pathways. It’s a science-based early warning signal of transition risk, not a verdict.
Why the Old Term Had to Go
The trouble with “stranding” was that it implied something we never intended to claim: certainty about a building’s future financial fate. It suggested that crossing the pathway threshold meant an asset was doomed to lose value, become unlettable, or fall off a cliff on a specific date.
That’s simply not what our data says. As CRREM CEO Andrea Palmer put it, the old term suggested a level of certainty about future financial outcomes that our science-based tool does not predict.
Whether an asset actually becomes financially stranded down the line depends on a whole web of factors well outside our pathways: regulation, tenant demand, investor sentiment, capital expenditure decisions, lease structures, and broader market conditions. CRREM tells you when an asset drifts out of step with a temperature change trajectory. The market, not CRREM, decides what happens after that.
So What’s the Difference, Really?
- Misalignment: a transition risk signal. It flags when an asset’s carbon or energy intensity overextends what the science says it should be.
- Stranding: a specific and deterministic financial and market outcome, shaped by forces well beyond any single metric.
Conflating the two does everyone a disservice. It risks making CRREM sound more like a crystal ball than what it actually is: a rigorous, transparent, science-based tool for identifying risk early enough to do something about it.
Our Ask
If you’re still saying “stranding year” out of habit, no judgement. We’ve caught ourselves doing it too. But we’d love your help retiring it from decks, reports, newsletters, data platforms, and everyday conversation. Every time “Misalignment Year” gets used instead, it nudges the market a little closer to talking about transition risk with the nuance and precision it deserves.
So next time it slips out, a gentle nudge back: it’s not stranded. It’s misaligned. Thank you for supporting our long-term transition to clearer, more precise language.
