Building Energy Resilience

Although I have commissioned a number of LEED New Construction projects, I have recently become involved in the LEED accreditation process for Existing Buildings (LEED EB). As part of the energy prerequisite, one requirement is to conduct an Energy Audit that is equivalent to ASHRAE Level 1 Energy Audit. This is the first of three levels of audits that ASHRAE has designed and more and more existing buildings are turning to this process to define energy savings opportunities within their buildings. Whether you are striving for LEED EB energy credit, or are focused on improving the longevity and operation of your building, a Level 1 Audit is a good place to define the roadmap to realizing these goals.

Energy savings opportunities can be difficult to implement at times because of the perceived financial impacts they may have on a project. All too often a short-sighted view is taken with regard to a marginal increase in project cost vs. the long term cost reduction impacts that marginal cost will achieve.

Investments in energy efficiency are often evaluated in terms of their relative financial performance. In the realm of building energy efficiency, the relative financial performance of investment alternatives is typically quantified in terms of a simple payback. Simple payback calculations may be helpful for initial screening and ranking of project alternatives, however, they can oversimplify financial evaluation to the point that the best performing alternatives are not properly quantified and identified. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analyses, in comparison, include a comprehensive examination of all of the costs and savings attributable to the investment.

In my last blog post, I discussed the short- to medium-term hiring of an Energy Auditor. But if your firm is dedicated to energy efficiency as a matter of doing business, you are looking for a person to act in a long-term role of an Energy Manager. This position doesn't have to be full-time and it can be held by an outside consultant, but you want someone who will learn your facility, your equipment, your employees’ needs and your process needs. This can’t be a tactical strike as the energy audit is, because an audit is only a snapshot. If energy management is a goal, you need someone who will stay with your business and keep abreast of the changing needs and circumstances. This takes a high level, managerial decision to invest in the efficiency of the facility.

In my last blog post, I described the fact that there are a number of energy professionals, each with their own credentials and each of whom brings a different skill to the table. For a business owner, the variety of these professions may be a bit daunting. What type of professional do I hire to address my energy concerns?

Not too long ago, data center energy efficiency was an obscure and almost irrelevant topic of discussion for building managers and engineers. As our economy becomes increasingly digitized and productive, more and larger data centers have been developed to meet the digital demand. The media has recently reported that data centers now use close to 2 percent of global annual energy consumption. At this level of energy consumption, data center energy efficiency has rapidly become an important consideration for achieving energy conservation goals.

Are your lights on when you aren’t in your office? Do you have a problem with glare on screens or even direct line of sight glare? Bad lighting is a problem. Good lighting design is about more than energy efficiency, but should never be accomplished absent consideration of energy performance. In my last blog post I raised my concerns about the lack of progress in regulating lighting efficiency in Chapter 9 of ASHRAE 90.1. While the rest of the standard has made considerable strides in raising the bar driving more engineers and architects to learn and apply increasingly sophisticated solutions in their building designs, Chapter 9 effectively gives lighting designers a pass relative to efficiency. This translates to less efficient buildings overall as lighting efficiency “gains” in Chapter 9 are traded off against less efficient approaches to building envelope or HVAC design. In this post I want to talk solutions.

I have been involved with hundreds of projects in one capacity or another where I’ve designed or commissioned HVAC systems. With only a few exceptions, it’s been my experience that ductwork is never installed exactly as drawn. Most of the time it’s close. Usually, this is due to a lack of coordination during design requiring in-field modifications or a lack of detail when it comes to equipment hookups. We all expect design engineers to have their designs perfectly coordinated and their equipment details to be exact. I was on the design side for more than 10 years and I can tell you that there is never enough fee or enough time in the design schedule for that to be a reality. Until that changes, we’d all better expect field modifications.

I’m finding that the lighting energy requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 are less efficient than standard practice in the field. Standard 90.1 is the “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low Rise Residential Buildings” and is often used by design professionals as the de facto energy code. The 2013 edition of the Standard has just been released and amazingly, the allowed lighting power density (LPD)¹ has increased since 2004 for several common space types, such as private offices, and for multiple building types, including offices and parking garages. Yet, since 2004 the energy efficiency of lighting equipment has improved dramatically. Why is the code going the wrong way?

In facilities management and building owner circles, Preventative Maintenance (PM) contracts are seen (at least in theory) as a good way to outsource the routine maintenance of some/all building equipment. As an example, a HVAC PM contractor could change air filters in air handlers and terminal equipment, replace belts, drain and fill cooling tower systems before and after the winter, grease bearings, possibly perform chemical treatment of hydronic or condenser water systems, and perform other routine service tasks. The frequency and scope of service varies from contract to contract—some items are replaced on an as-needed basis—for example, belts may be inspected at some predefined interval, and replaced as wear is evident. Other tasks may be scheduled as a standard interval—such as filter changes. And still other tasks may be triggered by variables such as climactic conditions—for example, when a cooling tower is drained for the winter or refilled in the springtime.