LEVEL 3: TRANSITION TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Level 3 is really the beginning of project development and seeks to minimize risks through more thorough analysis and measurement to improve estimated savings and costs. It’s expected to run into higher costs. Level 3 generally is not recommended as a first step because it adds real cost to the project being considered. It’s a step building owners wouldn’t normally take unless they’re pretty sure the project looks compelling.
WHAT’S CHANGED
Short answer: not a lot. The main thing is the standard explicitly and clearly defines requirements for items, such as:
- Life-cycle cost analysis.
- Schematic diagrams for proposed retrofits (exception for like-for-like retrofits).
- Detailed measurement or modeling.
- A simple risk assessment for the impact of key assumptions.
The requirement to provide a schematic diagram of the installation is essentially another quality-control check to ensure the proposed project fits the physical requirements of the facility. This step may cause the auditor to ask questions he or she hadn’t previously considered carefully, such as “Will the boiler fit through the door?”.
Easier Data Transfer
Wouldn’t it be great if data were available for analysis, rather than in PDFs and spreadsheets all over the country?
One of the optional parts of the standard that is very exciting is the collaboration with BuildingSync developers (a collaboration among the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Department of Energy’s national energy labs) to facilitate energy audit data transfer between different platforms and applications. BuildingSync is “a standard language for commercial building energy audit data that software developers can use to exchange data between audit tools.” It’s important to remember that BuildingSync is a language, not a tool.
The good folks at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., built a tool to take data from the standard’s required forms and interpret it into BuildingSync-compatible code. This enables fast and easy data transfer using tools, like Asset Score, which many cities are using as the reporting plat- form for mandatory audits. Once you’ve uploaded your audit data and building characteristics in Asset Score, you then can output some of that data into a draft building model for OpenStudio, the free user interface for EnergyPlus, which replaces the DOE-2 building energy simula- tion engine. OpenStudio and EnergyPlus also were developed through collaborations between the DOE’s national labs, academic institutions and private firms.
Who Can Conduct Energy Audits?
Virtually everyone providing input to the standard development agreed on one thing: The qualifications of the energy auditor are some of the most important determinants of the value of an energy audit. The problem was nearly everyone had different ideas about who was qualified. If you asked folks who is qualified to conduct energy audits, the answer was, and I’m paraphrasing, “Me”.
In the end, the standard defines the qualifications with a balance toward those with engineering expertise, those with demonstrated knowledge and those who practice day to day. Furthermore, the standard relies on DOE’s Better Buildings Workforce Guidelines as an independent evaluator of appropriate certifications for building energy auditors and energy managers. Under ANSI guidelines, ASHRAE couldn’t endorse its own Building Energy Assessment Professional (BEAP) certification because others offer similar certifications.
The Cost-to-value Relationship of Energy Audits
Having clearly defined levels, a qualified energy auditor and understanding the cost-to-value relationship is essential to getting what you expect and pay for from an energy audit. The relationship is not a linear one though. In fact, it has a cliff on the low-cost side. In other words, if you pay half as much for an energy audit, you don’t get half the value and you might not get any value at all—or worse—negative value, such as costly, poor advice.
That cliff stems from the time your energy auditor spends on the project and his or her skill used to assess the costs and benefits. The new energy-efficient chiller won’t halfway fit through the door to the mechanical room; it simply won’t fit. In addition, if you knew upfront the retrofit you implemented would only realize half the estimated audit savings and cost twice as much, you likely wouldn’t have pursued the project. One surefire way to weed out the inexperienced and invaluable is to ask for redacted sample audit reports that will reveal what you’ll really get for your money.
A Good Investment
Whether your city requires energy audits or you’re interested in energy and cost-saving retrofits, keep in mind the new energy audit standard with the cost-to-value relationship so you can make the best choice. Sure, for mandatory audits it’s appealing to meet the letter of the law with a low-cost bidder and be done. But don’t be surprised if your audit report offers no real value. When you are considering the benefits of lowering your operational costs and increasing property value by saving energy, consider paying more for an experienced vendor—one who provides a work product that has real value by identifying low-cost savings opportunities and good investment opportunities that meet your own financial criteria and building needs. In that case, you’re likely to find energy savings that more than pay for the difference, and you won’t be disappointed.
Order ASHRAE Standard 211 – 2018, Standard for Commercial Building Energy Audits.
ASHRAE Audit Levels 1, 2 and 3 in Brief
LEVEL 1: A quick (inexpensive) scoping study to estimate the potential for energy savings in a building and how the building compares to peers.
LEVEL 2: What most people expect from an energy audit—site-specific measures with estimates of energy and cost savings. Includes useful back- ground information, such as his- torical energy consumption and an estimate of the consumption by end use (HVAC, lighting, plug loads, etc.).
LEVEL 3: A more detailed development of measures the owner is interested in pursuing with a deeper level of measurements, calculations and preliminary design elements to reduce uncertainty in savings estimate, refine costs and minimize risk.