An energy audit, in its most basic form, is taking a step back and looking at the use of energy across a building and a business. It includes looking at bills, building services and plant, maintenance costs, needs, culture and processes. It identifies how and where energy is currently being used and by whom. It assesses how and where improvements could be made. More sophisticated versions will also include looking at how current consumption stacks up against a proposed transition to net-zero carbon by either 2030 or 2050.
However, the biggest issue with any energy audit is that recommendations are not acted upon. Government research has found only one in four organisations have acted on recommendations received as part of mandatory energy auditing under the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS).
This is partly because the information in energy audits, whether simple or sophisticated, is often not presented in a way that make sense for those who own or manage the asset.
A series of recommendations focused on energy savings is of little use if it does not also take into account the context of tenant satisfaction and disruption, cost effectiveness and other company strategic objectives.
What are the low or no-cost options? What are the payback periods? How long would it take for the quick wins to generate savings that would help fund larger projects? What are the options that look like quick wins now but might cost more money down the track?
For example, replacing an old boiler with a more modern and efficient version might seem a straight-forward option. But with the increasing decarbonisation of the national grid, and the ratchetting up of energy standards in favour of electric systems, has the idea of making a building gas-free been explored? If this decision is taken down the track then the new and expensive boiler might need to be ripped out after only a few years.
At resero we see two common problems with energy audits. The first is that energy data is often incomplete and contradictory.
The second is that the energy audit, or the data analysis, is often done by those with little understanding of the engineering of the building and its services. Recommendations end up falling by the wayside because implementation becomes more complicated and confusing than anyone had anticipated.
Our experience is backed up by the government’s research which showed that energy audits were more successful when an audit was ‘investment grade’ and completed by those with superior technical expertise in understanding and implementing energy efficiency.
MPs are now calling for mandatory implementation of recommendations from audits. At EDGE we would argue a different approach to energy audits is required where they become more than just box ticking, but an integral part of the day-to-day decision making for a building.
Engineers and contractors need to be consulted on proposed solutions to ensure they are achievable within an acceptable timeframe.
Detailed cost plans and payback periods should be standard. We believe that where practical the recommendations of the audit should be fed into the asset’s 5-10 year planned maintenance programme (also referred to as lifecycle cost plan). This is the strategic document used to plan expenditure for both service chargeable and non-service chargeable cost items.
This will ensure any decision made about a building not only keeps it operational but also saves the maximum amount of energy and carbon.
This might be a slower, and possibly more expensive, process to begin with but will save time and money down the road. It will also ensure recommendations become outcomes and not just a list of ideas on a piece of paper.