A one-time decision for a new headquarters
Taiho Bosai’s new headquarters project was not a routine equipment replacement. The former building was aging, and the company wanted a new base that could support the next 60 years of its business.
As the architectural plan progressed, management and employees agreed that the new building should be designed as an off-grid building. The priority was not visible technology, but a working environment in which employees could continue their normal duties without thinking about power failures.
The project therefore avoided adding emergency-only procedures from the outset. For a company whose business is disaster prevention, this was a requirement it first had to meet in its own operations.
Why the project rejected the idea of “emergency-only” power
A conventional office building would normally use utility power as its primary source, install high-voltage receiving equipment, and add a diesel generator for emergencies.
Taiho Bosai questioned that model. During an emergency, the field team is already busy. Adding special decisions, switching procedures, and manual operations makes resilience weaker rather than stronger.
The company therefore removed the word “emergency” from the RFP. The requirement was not how to switch power during a disaster, but how to keep operating under the same conditions and the same procedures in normal and emergency situations.
Operating the entire building under the same conditions
Because the off-grid concept was outside the normal scope of the building contractor, the project was separated by responsibility. The main building work included the gas heat-pump air-conditioning system, while the off-grid power, communications, and gas systems were handled separately.
The design principle was clear: do not switch operating modes between normal, emergency, and disaster conditions. Solar power became the primary source, supported by LPG generation, and the system was treated as the building’s normal power architecture rather than as emergency equipment.
Environmental conditions beyond initial assumptions
The power equipment had to be installed outdoors on the rooftop. Crane limitations also prevented the completed enclosure from being lifted as one unit, so the equipment had to be disassembled, transported, and reassembled on site.
After operation began, additional conditions became clear: airborne dust, high humidity, increasingly high summer temperatures, and equipment temperatures approaching 50°C.
Adjustment and improvement led by the field team
The project team did not dismiss these issues as unforeseen exceptions. Dust, humidity, heat, corrosion, fan degradation, and internal temperature rise were treated as operating realities, and countermeasures were added step by step.
A resilient design is not a finished object. It is a system that continues to be updated as operating conditions change.
Lightning damage and additional customization
Lightning activity in the surrounding area increased, and the system experienced actual lightning-related damage. The response required more than repair; the design assumptions themselves had to be revisited.
The additional work focused on improved sealing, balanced cooling performance and power consumption, and stronger lightning protection—without increasing the operational burden on employees.
People are what keep the system running
The headquarters power system is now operating stably, but it was not perfect from the beginning. Construction constraints, rooftop exposure, dust, humidity, heat, and lightning all existed outside the original drawings.
The system succeeded because management made a clear decision, employees noticed changes, and the field team continued to improve the design. The principle of avoiding unnecessary decisions in the field remained viable because the system itself continued to evolve.
Continue to Part 2
Part 2 examines the same normal-times-equals-disaster-times operating principle from the receiving-service and load-design side. It explains why the project did not assume high-voltage service from the outset, and how low-voltage service, GHP air conditioning and a defined load cap were combined.
Case Study / Part 2
Why We Chose Not to Use High-Voltage Service
Read how the receiving method was selected from the load profile and long-term operating flexibility rather than fixed in advance.
Revision History
| 2026-01-17 | Published. |
|---|---|
| 2026-09-25 | English edition synchronized with the Japanese V9.1 source, including first-party operation data and post-installation improvements for the rooftop outdoor environment. |