The Building Advisor

Good article at FacilitiesNet about the importance of HVAC maintenance relative to costs savings.  This is verification of what we are constantly hearing and saying ourselves – that in order to sell maintenance plans, you need to tie them to cost savings.  There are several ways to do this, including energy efficiency from well-maintained equipment, avoidance of hefty repair or replacement costs, and avoidance of costly downtime.

The key is to speak in the language of the building’s decision maker – financial.  They are not usually from a building operation or facility management background, so trying to make your case using the language of those fields is going to be far less effective than taking the time and effort to quantify the cost savings and presenting that information up front.

They also point out the importance of documentation.  Without it, your chances of getting a planned maintenance agreement drop dramatically.

It surprises a lot of people to learn just how much can be saved through proper maintenance.  The article points out, “Organizations that have implemented comprehensive planned and predictive maintenance programs show dramatic decreases in maintenance costs. And when factors are included, such as extended equipment life, reduced energy use, less frequent system downtime, and decreased interruptions to building operations, organizations that have implemented comprehensive maintenance programs find that their total costs can be as much as 50 percent lower than the costs for those organizations that continue maintain equipment reactively.”

How are you quantifying the energy and other costs that you can save your customers through your planned maintenance agreements?

The energy industry has a challenge ahead of them as the focus on energy use, conservation and daily management of operating costs becomes greater.  What can be done for those building types that have mixed energy use?

A perfect starter example is the Mixed-Use Residential High Rise that has commercial space on the first couple of floors.  A whole building energy performance report would be tough in this situation because it is likely that the commercial retail space and the residential spaces are all individually heated and cooled, metered individually and serviced by mechanical contractors.  Each of these individual spaces can be tackled for energy conservation opportunities, but as a whole, the building does not have central systems that use energy beyond common area lights and mechanical ventilation.

A second example is a Mixed-Use Industrialbuilding, something that has manufacturing space, flex office space and large electrical or gas processes.  It is absolutely true these buildings have high energy  usage and could benefit greatly from cost reductions.  The tough performance criteria for a whole building look at energy consumption has to due with the non-temperature dependant energy loads used by the manufacturing space.

A third example is Hospitals, whose 24hr operation, large sets of electrical equipment and non-temperature dependent processes in the same vane as the industrial space.

These buildings in no way should be abandoned to high energy costs, in fact, there are some simple approaches to take when assessing a mixed use building for energy conservation.

1. Focus the energy assessment on comfort performance inside the space, i.e. meeting temperature set points and not overshooting the set points.
2. Focus on the controls in place by zone and whether the systems are turning on and off as scheduled.  There are a huge amount of savings in fixing schedules.
3. Add more zones and control of zones for both HVAC and lighting systems to allow for compartmental energy use based on actual need and not a perceived need.
4. Use demand control ventilation by zone if possible because the savings are not only in the fan energy, its also in reduced heating and cooling costs.
5. Be sure the economizer is operating and if there are none, install them to take advantage of free cooling opportunities.

This post first appeared as an editorial in the March 2009 edition of Building Operating Management magazine.  It was written by Edward Sullivan.

Cars and trucks are required to have them.  Washer, dryers, and refrigerators have to have them too.  So why shouldn’t buildings need labels disclosing how much energy they use?

That question is drawing the attention of government bodies from coast to coast.  The District of Columbia is phasing in requirements for buildings to benchmark energy performance and then make results public.  Starting next year, California will require owners to report energy consumption information to prospective buyers, tenants, and lenders.  New York City, another trend setter in the regulation of buildings, has held hearings on a measure to mandate energy-use labeling.

The idea of energy-use disclosure is nothing new.  The voluntary ENERGY STAR label for buildings has been around for more than a decade.  A growing number of facility executives see that label – part of the widely recognized ENERGY STAR label brand – as a valuable tool for communicating with audiences inside and outside of the organization.

But a mandate for energy-use disclosure?  To some facility executives, that sort of regulation is anathema.  They know they’ll be on the hot seat if a building gets a low energy score.

That’s not an easy position to be in.  But climate change is putting energy efficiency on the top management agenda.  It is growing more likely that the senior executives will want to know how buildings are performing.  Why not get a jump on things by finding out what your ENERGY STAR score is?  As Brandon Lorenz’s article in this issue shows, a low score can be a powerful tool to motivate organizations to support energy improvements.  And even if it doesn’t free up resources, it may give you, and the rest of your organization, a glimpse of what lies ahead.

Good news for LEED-EB and anyone involved in conducting LEED-related services for existing buildings.  A recent study showed that not only is the cost of certification lower than many facility executives think, but also operating costs for LEED certified buildings are on average lower than non-certified buildings.  And consistent with what we repeatedly see in our building assessments, many low and no cost credits can serve as a starting point for facility executives to begin the journey to LEED-EB certification.

One of our favorite statements, which the study’s authors point out, is that sustainability and LEED-EB certification are both journeys, not destinations, and that the important thing is to get started and keep moving in the direction of sustainability.

There are resources all around for getting started, whether you are a building owner or manager or a building service provider.  Local utilities, industry tradegroups, technology providers, and others all typically have tools, guides, and ideas for getting started.

If the $787 billion dollar American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the Stimulus Package, has done anything it’s created a buzz about how one can get their hands on a piece of this enormous pie.  Given that nearly $20 billion is slated for a whole host of energy efficiency programs, those of us working in the energy efficiency field are taking a particular interest.

We get questions from our customers, specifically HVAC contractors, all the time about how they can plug into funding.  Here’s the simple explanation, with some clues as to where to look for opportunities.

Stimulus money for energy efficiency that HVAC contractors could hope to get their hands on is being directed through two primary sources:

1.  Energy efficiency upgrades in federal buildings (GSA and Department of Defense facilities)

The DoD projects are the best defined.  Here is a link to a document that details thousands of projects – everything from roof replacements to parking lot paving, but also including a lot of HVAC projects.  It’s detailed out by state, and by facility, down to the specific retrofit proposed.

The GSA project list is not as detailed, but does highlight the facilities that they are proposing to upgrade.

The challenge will be determining how open or closed the proposal process will be.  My advice is to just start digging for information about the projects that look interesting and align with the markets you serve.

2.  Funding channeled through state energy offices

Funding for energy efficiency projects in the private sector ultimately flows down through projects at the state and local level.  In general, the money is allocated through existing funding formulas.  Honeywell has built a website for their customers to track projects funded by the Stimulus package.  On this site there are links to each state’s website which details the activity that is ramping up across the country.

It remains to be seen how accessible these funds ultimately are, but at this stage, it can’t hurt to try.

$13.2 million project.  Will save $4.4 million in energy costs per year.  And reduce energy consumption by 40%.

What monstrosity of a building is this?  The Empire State Building in New York, which is undergoing a major sustainability retrofit to become a leading example of economic and environmental revitalization.

What’s even better is that they truly are making an example out of it.  Check out the website dedicated to the project which includes interactive retrofit puzzles, explanatory documents, videos, and images, and even tools available for immediate download.  With the Clinton Climate Initiative as one of the main facilitators of the Empire State Building’s retrofit project, part of the mission is to help educate others in the industry.

Even if you don’t work on buildings of this size or projects of this magnitude, this serves as a very informative and inspiring example of what is possible in reducing energy consumption in existing buildings.

“Last week, the Bloomington City Council passed the city’s first green building ordinance, requiring 15 government buildings to meet stringent energy efficiency standards” as reported in the Indiana Daily Student.

Familiar headlines will be seen in local communities throughout the country.  Some will use federal stimulus money, some will use local taxes and some will issue bonds.  Whatever the source of funding, rest assured a tsunami of projects that drive energy conservation in public buildings is coming your way.  Many will pursue LEED-EBOM and some will be satisified with an EnergyStar rating.  Whatever their goals may be with regard to a building label, one common theme drives these initiatives, a desire to cut operating costs and their carbon footprint while demonstrating responsible stewardhip of taxpayers’ dollars.

So, what can you do to get your share?  I am seeing a good number of seminars and meetings with public officials to educate potential suppliers at the local level.  These can be helpful but don’t fall into the trap of thinking this is going to help you secure the work.

Get into the field and start visiting with your city and county decision makers.  Educate them regarding your services and how you can efficiently help them assess their buildings’ energy performance and identify and quantify what you can do to help them.  By educating them you will help to define how the scope of work gets formed and ensure that they are focusing on the best potential return on investment.  So, get proactive and educate your community on how you can help them make investments with real paybacks.

The top 3 building types any energy service provider should be targeting are:

1. Offices
2. Schools
3. Retail locations

The reason these are the top 3 building types to target has to do with the overall number of opportunities, the ease of energy savings opportunities, and market conditions.  Office buildings and retail locations by far are two of the most prolific building types found in the US according to the 2007 Department of Energy database.  The savings opportunities in both office and schools are large based on the way they have been cobbled together over the years as the buildings tenants and purpose have changed.  Retail locations are ripe with operational savings opportunities and major retrofits depending on the age and size of the building.  In all three cases the market conditions are ripe for each of those building owner/opperators to squeeze more money out of the bottom line by reducing operating costs (ie energy cost reduction).  The case for offices is a question of asset value and retention in a sagging economy.  For schools it may be a little tough to make that strong of a case if the building has been starved of maintenance for many years, in this case the opportunity for retrofits and using utility incentives is high.  Retail locations definitly need to lower costs as they struggle to meet the same sales goals.

The drive to improve the energy efficiency of commercial (and residential) buildings for both cost reduction and positive impact on climate change continues.  The Obama administration recently announced an additional $3.2 billion specifically for energy efficiency improvements.  This is on top of what was originally announced when the stimulus bill was passed in February, which included $8 billion in funding for weatherization and other efficiency improvements.

Cities and counties will receive nearly $1.9 billion under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, and states and territories will receive nearly $770 million. States will receive and administer funds for those counties and cities that are not large enough to qualify for direct DOE funding.

If you are a building service provider, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with what’s available in your region and find out the process for applying for funding.  Information for every state is available on the DOE’s Recovery Act Web site.