This study aims to use the WELL Building Standard (v2), an internationally recognised rating system for health & wellbeing in buildings, to perform a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the effect of wellbeing measures on an office building’s energy use in three different climates. The qualitative analysis was based on literature review and engineering rules of thumb to assess the potential energy impact of WELL’s 120 features. The preliminary results show: of the 59 preconditional parts; 68% have a negligible energy impact, 19% have a potential energy penalty, 5% have a potential energy benefit; and for the remaining 8% the influence varies depending on the design and local climate; of the 235 optimisation sub-points: 61% have a negligible effect, 10% have a potential penalty, 11% have a potential benefit and 18% vary depending on the design and climate. Most of the WELL v2 features influence operational policies and material selections, and therefore have a negligible effect on energy. However, certain criteria related to Air, Light and Thermal Comfort can directly affect the building’s energy usage, including some features which are directly related to combating a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the further quantitative analysis, individual WELL features would have an energy impact of between +9% (energy penalty) to -11% (energy saving). When combining all of the ‘energy penalty features’ and ‘energy saving features’, the result led to 53-78% more annual energy use and 20-28% energy saving, respectively depending on the climate. When reflecting this on the LEED 4.1 assessment, the effect on LEED energy credits is less significant. Overall, through the appropriate design optimisation processes, and the consideration of the climatic context, the balance between the energy performance and health benefit for office buildings is likely to be achieved.