Category Archives: Energy Efficiency

Trump Administration Repeals, Replaces Obama-Era Clean Power Plan

Please note that this is a technical evaluation of current federal regulations. On June 19, 2019, the US EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule replacing and repealing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). ACE establishes emission guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) at their coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). ACE will allow states to set emissions standards for coal-fired plants. CPP, in effect since 2015, developed national standards to address CO2 emissions from power plants, allowing for a transition to cleaner sources of energy by 2030. The US EPA then projected that CPP would result in $26 billion to $45 billion net climate and health benefits, including the avoidance of 300,000 missed work-days and school-days, 90,000 asthma attacks, 1,700 heart attacks, and 3,600 premature deaths annually.

Instead, the new rule, ACE, will relieve the power industry of meeting these emission standards. This will, in particular, benefit the coal industry. ACE will likely face court challenges from several states, as well as environmental groups who see the repeal of CPP and adoption of ACE as steps backward from fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an accepted Clean Air Act pollutant. Shortly after adoption of the new rule, several state attorneys general signaled their intent to sue the US EPA over ACE.

ACE establishes that efficiency improvement of an electric generating unit is an acceptable approach for emissions reduction of CO2, giving coal-fired plants more options to reduce carbon intensity. The US EPA would consider technical feasibility, cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements in determining the most appropriate ways to reduce CO2 emissions. States will establish unit-specific “standards of performance” that reflect the emission limitation achievable through application of improving efficiency. ACE believes that the US EPA’s role is to be a technical advisor of potential strategies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The states’ role is to develop plans that establish unit-specific standards of performance that reflect application of best efforts to control emissions, taking into consideration, among other matters, the remaining life of the electric-generating unit. States must submit plans to the US EPA that establish their standards of performance and include measures that provide for the implementation and enforcement of such standards, due in three years. Therefore, states do not have to have any standards currently (CPP has been repealed) and by the time a plan is approved, it can be much longer.

CCES has the experts to provide technical advice on federal, state and local energy and environmental regulations so that you better understand how they impact you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Providing More Information on Energy Applied To Home Sales

Benchmarking is now the rage. More and more local governments are requiring building owners to compile and submit their energy usage data so that prospective buyers and renters have additional information to make their decision whether to bid, how much to bid, and to prepare for their time in the space. But these rules generally apply to large and/or commercial buildings and spaces. Since we spend most of our time in and our money on our homes, why can’t home buyers get access to a prospective home’s utility bills before you bid on it? The city of Portland, Oregon, has a program to give home shoppers such information, enabling the public to consider – if they wish – energy efficiency when buying a home. See https://www.pdxhes.com/ Other cities are looking at similar programs. After all, the energy efficiency of cars is public knowledge and used by many to decide on which brand to buy, why not the bigger investment of a home?

Portland is the first US city to require home sellers to determine and disclose a Home Energy Score through the Better Buildings Program of the US Dept of Energy, which gives a score from 1 to 10 and compares the energy performance of a given home compared to others in the US. Home owners must hire a certified assessor to perform an energy audit to determine the score.

In 2018, about 10,000 homes were assessed in Portland, achieving an average score of 4.6, slightly below average (5.0). This low score occurred presumably because many homes for sale were older, built before building codes set efficiency requirements, greatly reducing the mean. Of course, this brings up to the owners an opportunity to install insulation, replace windows, and/or upgrade HVAC to raise its energy score and, thus, improve the home’s marketability.

Austin, Texas, requires homes that are 10 years or older to have a professional energy audit performed and disclose its results when listing the property. Berkeley, California requires home sellers to develop a home energy score and disclose it to the buyer at or shortly after the sale. Montgomery County, Maryland, and Chicago require disclosure of utility bills to potential home buyers; Chicago also encourages (but does not require) including this information in listings.

Many believe that this can be successful in encouraging energy efficiency, as evidenced by automobile purchase trends. US car buyers now rate energy efficiency as important as price. Home energy ratings, already more common in Europe, has led to the correlation of higher home energy ratings resulting in higher sales prices.

CCES has the experts to help you determine how energy efficient your building is, whether it be your home, a commercial, or an industrial building. We can determine cost-effective ways to raise your score or efficiency, which will save you cost and raise your building’s asset value. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Batteries and Energy Efficiency Programs

A few months ago, I posted a blog article on new trends with battery power, including a description of Massachusetts’ latest energy efficiency plan – the first in the nation – which encourages energy efficiency funds to be used for energy storage projects that reduce peak demand, and otherwise encourage the implementation of batteries to store power at a facility.

There has been some criticism of this part of the plan since it was issued. There is no question that batteries are beneficial to reduce peak demand on a grid, to steady the unsteady generation of solar and wind power, to have as a backup in case of a horrendous storm. However, batteries are also inherently inefficient energy-wise. In the process of gathering, storing, and then releasing power, some electricity is lost. Therefore, for every kilowatt-hour of electricity stored in a battery, more electricity must be generated in the first place. Of course, if this electricity is generated from renewable sources, there is no additional cost (no fuel to obtain) and no GHG emissions.

Therefore, batteries are no help for energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction goals, except in the context of solar and wind technologies. An office complex utilizing battery storage will, by itself, not cause less electricity used for the lights, computers, elevators, AC, etc.

Nobody can argue that battery storage can help make the grid more reliable in case of very high peak demand and storm damage. While Massachusetts is unique in encouraging battery development and implementation, other organizations believe the first and perhaps only priority should be in energy efficiency and reducing demand for energy, while growing the economy.

Supporters of battery storage argue that encouraging usage will help maximize the benefits of solar and wind generation, encouraging more clean power nationwide displacing dirtier fossil fuel-generated power, including peaker plants or fuel-generated plants that operate in conjunction with solar and wind plants.

Therefore, the Massachusetts program should be read as a program to encourage smart energy “management”, rather than for efficiency alone. States and nations need to move toward better energy management, which is not only efficiency, but operations and reliability, as well.

CCES has the experts to help your firm or entity manage your energy better, a growing issue as energy costs rise faster than inflation. Whether it is battery power, renewable power, or just being more efficient to be “green” and save costs, CCES can help you reach your goals and save costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC Enacts New Rule Requiring GHG Emission Limits for Commercial, Residential Buildings

On April 22, 2019, Earth Day, the City of New York enacted the “Climate Mobilization Act” into law (“Intro 1253”). This law will impose mandatory GHG emission limits for large buildings, beginning in calendar year 2024. This new rule is clearly the most ambitious Climate Change rule taken by a U.S. municipality.

Buildings are responsible for about 70% of NYC’s GHG emissions; half of this comes from large buildings. Therefore, NYC has focused on the building sector to meet their 80% X 2050 emission reduction goals, starting with its own energy code and with local laws requiring benchmarking, energy audits, retro-commissioning, and sub-metering.

Rule Overview

Intro 1253 goes further, containing GHG emission intensity limits on nearly all buildings of at least 25,000 square feet of floor area beginning in 2024. The law defines the term “building emissions” as “GHG emissions as expressed in metric tons of CO2e emitted as a result of operating a covered building.” Thus, the limits on GHG emissions will apply not only to Scope 1 or on-site sources (such as those from a building’s boiler) but also include Scope 2 or off-site sources caused by a demand, such as purchased steam or electricity consumed in building operations. The building emissions intensity limits are tailored to specific Occupancy Groups. They will be be ratcheted down in 5-year intervals after 2029 to reduce GHG emissions from covered buildings by 80% by 2050.

The table in the link below summarizes GHG emission limits from different listed building types. https://energywatch-inc.com/breaking-new-york-city-council-passes-first-of-its-kind-ghg-emissions-cap-for-buildings/

Exemptions

A major category exempt from this law is “rent regulated accommodations”, such as those with rent-stabilized units, lest rents may be raised markedly for needed upgrades. Intro 1253 does require the owners of such excluded rental multifamily buildings to implement several prescriptive energy conservation measures, such as repairing leaky heating systems, insulating pipes for heat and hot water, weatherizing windows and ductwork, and installing timers on exhaust fans. Among the other rule exemptions are public housing and houses of public worship. Not-for-profit hospitals and health-care facilities are not exempted from the rule but will need to meet less stringent standards.

Paths To Compliance

Intro 1253 provides a number of pathways to reduce GHG emissions. Thus, reductions may be credited to an owner for “renewable energy credits” (RECs), so long as the RECs are generated by a renewable source located in or directly deliverable to NYC. For calendar years between 2024 and 2029 deductions for up to 10% of reported annual emissions may also be taken for GHG offsets (offsite emission reductions) purchased by a building owner. Additional deductions from a building’s calculated emissions for the output of a clean distributed energy resource must be located at, on, in or directly connected to the building.

This new law does not allow for emissions trading among covered buildings. However, the City is studying the feasibility of such a trading scheme and will report to the Mayor and Speaker of the City Council by no later than January 1, 2021.

Intro 1253 imposes significant civil penalties for exceeding the annual building emissions limit and the degree of excess emissions. These penalties could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

What You Can Do NOW To Reduce The Cost and
Aggravation of Complying

Owners of covered buildings should take advantage of the “head start” before the 2024 compliance date to begin developing strategies for addressing the requirements of Intro 1253. Technical experts can estimate whether a building, as it is operating today, would comply with the 2024 limits and, if not, options to achieve compliance in time. The owner has time to choose the best option(s) to comply, reducing costs and risk if the owner waited longer. And future planning is critical. The technical assessment can anticipate the likely operation and emissions of systems in 2024. This early determination of strategies can save a building owner a lot in avoided compliance costs.

Intro 1253 is reality. Building owners in NYC will need to determine their GHG emissions and possibly modify or upgrade energy systems to comply with the standards. Other cities and states will be watching and Intro 1253 could well be a model that others will emulate. Don’t just push this aside to another time or year. Look into this soon, be active, and take steps soon to comply, saving you money and raising your asset value. Watch out for more CCES blog articles on this rule and how to comply as the City of New York provides more details!

CCES has the experts in both energy engineering and greenhouse gas (“carbon”) emissions to help you assess your covered buildings and their compliance status, and can recommend smart and prudent steps to ensure compliance early on, saving you much money, improving asset value, and reducing the worry about compliance. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

High Efficiency Transformers – A Demand Side Strategy for NetZero Projects

by Lisa Westerfield, Technical Group Services

The most popular energy efficiency measures to reduce demand side loads include high-performance envelopes, daylighting, glazing, passive solar heating and then some. People often overlook the fact that power losses supplied by inefficient transformers can increase a building’s energy costs by as much as 6-12%.

Locked away in an electrical closet for the life of a building, transformers take high voltage power from the grid and convert it to lower voltage power that can be used by everything that runs on electricity in homes, offices, and manufacturing facilities.

The process of converting (stepping down) voltages involves some waste in the form of heat. Common examples of transformers that step-down power to even smaller voltages, that cell phones and laptops use, are at the cubes located at the ends of chargers. After they’ve been plugged in for a while, they warm up. That warmth is electricity that’s being lost in the form of waste heat.

Prior to 2007, efficiency requirements were non-existent for transformers. Recognizing the impact that inefficient transformers have on the built environment, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted. The policy required all dry type transformers rated 600V or less to meet NEMA TP-1 requirements by January 2007. In 2016, the DOE amended 10 CFR 431 (DOE 2016). By decreasing losses from 29-36% depending on the size of the transformer, the DOE estimated that that the new energy efficiency standard will save consumers up to $12.9 billion for equipment sold from 2016 – 2045.

While the DOE 2016 standard is a step in the right direction, those looking to do better, lower energy costs, and design NetZero projects need every edge they can get to reduce the demand side load and the renewable footprint. Transformers that are more efficient than the DOE standard exist.to help.

Powersmiths makes transformers with an additional 30-50% less losses than the DOE 2016 standard. These efficiencies are achieved by using a higher grade of steel for the core, using copper for the windings, offering models in each kVA size that are optimized for the application load, and offering more kVA sizes so that the whole system does not need to be oversized. The additional reduction in losses translates into an additional reduction in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions by 6-12%. Put into perspective – On a NetZero project estimated to use 100 panels, would need 6-12 less panels.

To learn more about “Powersmiths Solutions for NetZero Buildings” go to https://www.powersmiths.com/netzero/

For more information, contact Lisa Westerfield, LEED AP, Technical Group Services at 609-947-1960 or at lisa@tgs-inc.com

Talking Points: Lighting Upgrades

Part of a series taking important energy concepts and wording them so you can pass basic information to your colleagues, supervisors, and contacts.

Background

There is no hard and fast rule, but for many businesses lighting is a significant, if not majority, source of energy usage. Therefore, reducing energy, a fast-growing cost center, should start with lighting. There has literally – not figuratively, literally – been a revolution in technology allowing equipment to operate just as well, if not better, while using significantly less energy. Leading the way is lighting technology.

Light emitting diodes (LEDs) in general, use about half of the electricity (wattage) of an equivalent fluorescent lamp producing the same amount (lumens) of light. For incandescents, wattage reduction is 70% or more. LEDs is not a “new” technology as some think; it was invented in 1927. It was not popular for a long period because of its high cost and limitations on how it can be used. Over time, these issues have been overcome, LEDs can fit in virtually every existing fixture or ballasts, and its cost has dropped markedly and likely bottomed out. Now, it’s a “no-brainer” to replace with LEDs.

The Many Benefits of LED Lighting

• Save significant energy costs. As mentioned above, LED lamps use half or less the wattage of conventional lamps. One may think that replacement may represent “only” a “minor” drop in, say, 16 watts per lamp, and, thus, is “not worth it”. However, many commercial buildings operate hundreds, if not thousands, of lights over many hours per day and days per year. Therefore, the electric usage (kilowatt-hours) and cost savings by switching to LEDs is significant. Switching to LEDs also reduces peak load, reducing that high charge utilities typically charge based on peak demand.

Depending on the LED project, it is typical to see simple paybacks of 1 to 3 years. Since most LED lights are warrantied for 7 years, you will have 4 to 6 years of “gravy”. In fact, many LED replacement projects have a return on investment in the range of 20 to 40% per year. What bank or Wall St. investment pays this well, with no risk (reduced wattage is reduced wattage)?! And the single act of changing to LEDs leads to an increase in future savings as cost is based on electric rates, which only going up every year!

Some managers, even when they are convinced that LED lamps are the way to go, will only replace existing lights as they burn out. Given these robust financial benefits, switching all your lighting to LEDs makes the most economic sense, and represents cost savings that occur and will be quite visible in your first electric bill.

• Longer life spans. LED lamps typically last much longer than fluorescent lamps translating into lower maintenance and replacement costs. LED lights are warrantied for 7 years or more, while fluorescents must be replaced, typically, every two years. Having to change lamps less often saves building management time and aggravation in replacing lamps and frees Maintenance to concentrate on more important issues. Also, fewer lamp changes means fewer trips up and down a ladder or cherry picker, reducing the risk of accidental falls. Finally, the long lifetime also reduces the quantity of lamps you must keep onsite for replacement, freeing up valuable space for other purposes.

• Cool. LEDs release much less heat than other lamp types. Therefore, switching to LEDs can reduce indoor temperatures by 1-2°F, and therefore lower AC usage during hot weather, further reducing your electricity usage, peak demand, and, therefore, cost.

• Superior color, increased comfort. LED lamps produce light that is more pleasing to the eye given its clear light and high marks on the Color Rendering Index (CRI). This also indicates accurate true color reproduction. LEDs can be programmed to change its color temperature as the day goes on to reduce eye strain and stress, increase worker productivity, and raise visiting customer comfort and mood.

But There’s More!

If that were not enough, there are other strategies that one can implement to reduce energy usage through lighting. It is important to start with a lighting evaluation. Are there dark spots? Might you be delivering too much light to places, not only wasting electricity, but also causing eye strain and frustrated workers? There may be opportunities to de-lamp, remove one or several lamps in different areas to deliver the right amount of light.

And there is lighting controls. Operating even an efficient LED lamp is wasting electricity if it is lighting an area not being used. It is often assumed that all lights are turned off by the last user when a space is vacated. However, the reality is often people forget to turn off lights (as well as Housekeeping), and they remain on lighting an empty space for many hours or all night. Lighting controls effectively save electricity by turning off lights when a space is not in use and turning them back on when people enter. These controls can operate based on the space’s occupancy, a set schedule, or amount of sunlight entering the space. Significant electric cost savings can be achieved by intelligent use of lighting control technology.

I hope that this overview of lighting opportunities gives you the information to forge ahead and implement sound strategies sooner rather than waiting, rather than later, to upgrade your lights for greater user comfort and productivity and to save electric costs.

CCES has the experts to help you assess your space and determine which lighting and other energy strategies will provide you with the most direct financial benefits. We can perform the preliminary assessment, rank the options for you, and project manage the strategies you select to ensure locking in to those maximum financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Hospitals Is An Industry Making Minor Progress On Energy Efficiency

According to a recent report from Grumman/Butkas Associates, hospitals has shown some, but not substantial progress in being more energy efficient over the past 20 years. See https://mailchi.mp/grummanbutkus.com/hospitalsurvey2018p1-1345361.

Comparing recent surveys by the firm, hospital greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 averaged 63 lbs CO2e/square foot(sf)-year, while in 2017, it dropped to 52 lbs CO2e/sf-year.

However, average site energy usage intensity dropped only 0.3% during that period. Total energy usage (electricity, gas/oil, steam) of participating hospitals was nearly 242,000 Btu/sf in 2017.

As far as costs are concerned, according to the 2018 benchmarking survey report, hospitals have reduced their energy costs per square foot from a peak of about $3.75/sf in 2008 to about $3.16/sf in 2017. However, given the note above that the industry made only minor progress in energy efficiency, most of this cost reduction was achieved by negotiating better supply prices, leveraging their large usage. And, most of this was on the natural gas side. These numbers are fairly similar to those developed during their first survey in 1999.

All of this data spells critical issues, and also opportunities for the hospital industry. A 2014 survey showed that 51% of hospital expenses was energy related, far exceeding staff costs. Thus, reducing energy usage can help control hospital costs, which, as we all know, is a major political issue, in terms of affordable health care for all.

One problem with attempting to reduce energy usage in hospitals is the culture of redundancy. One way to reduce energy usage and, thus, GHG emissions, too, is to reduce or eliminate redundancy. However, having extra equipment, ambulances, at the ready is an important part of how a hospital operates and thinks. A hospital cannot function thinking there is a risk to patient health due to a cutback that would “merely” save energy or GHG emissions. Therefore, investments in ensuring more reliable systems can reduce redundancy and, therefore, emissions.

I can share the story of a hospital that keeps an ambulance running on idle at all times (24/7) in its “bullpen” in case an emergency call comes in. It would certainly not be acceptable in the rare case of all the ambulances to not be able to start. Well, this policy turned into an environmental issue as the exhaust of the constantly-running ambulance got into the intake of a major hospital building and exhaust was detected in patients’ rooms (ironically, in a wing specific for patients with lung diseases). In rectifying the problem, the hospital replaced older ambulances with those with sufficient and charged batteries so that reliability was no longer an issue and they did not have to run an ambulance at all times.

CCES has the experts to help your facility – whether it be in health care or not – minimize your energy usage and carbon footprint with smart ideas or with new, proven technologies. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Despite Tech Advances, CO2 Emissions Soar in 2018

Global CO2 emissions from energy sources rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (billion metric tons or Gt) in 2018, reversing a trend of a slow decline.

Despite the recent growth in renewable power projects (31% increase in solar alone) and the retirement of a growing number of coal and other fossil-fuel plants, world CO2 emissions grew in 2018. The main reason is the overall increase in global energy demand, by 2.3% in 2018, the greatest rise this decade. Analysts believe this was driven by a growing global economy and reaction to greater severe weather (increased heating and cooling needs) in some areas. While natural gas is a “cleaner” fuel than coal and oil, its use increased markedly in 2018, including new power plants, and accounted for 45% of the rise in energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). While the 31% growth in solar last year was impressive, it is 31% increase of a small number compared to fossil fuels whose overall use rose, too.

Despite the decline in coal use and retirement of coal-fired power plants in Europe and the U.S, coal-fired power plants are still popular and growing in developing Asia, where many of these plants are relatively new and have decades of useful life remaining. Therefore, decreasing CO2 emissions in the future is problematic.

Renewables were a major contributor to this power generation expansion, accounting for nearly half of electricity demand growth. China remains the leader in renewables, both for wind and solar, followed by Europe and the U.S.

A significant contributor to the 2.3% increase in global energy demand in 2018, according to the IEA, is the increase in heating and cooling as average winter and summer temperatures as some regions approached or exceeded historical records.

Energy demand growth was led by the U.S. Together, China, the U.S., and India accounted for nearly 70% of the total global rise in energy demand.

Global natural gas demand rose 4.6% in one year; in the U.S., the rise was for natural gas alone was 10% last year, the U.S.’s largest increase since the beginning of IEA records in 1971. Gas demand in China increased by almost 18%. Oil demand grew 1.3% worldwide, with the U.S. leading the global increase due to strong growth in petrochemical and other industrial production and transportation.

This points to a need to improve our energy intensity (energy use per GDP) and energy efficiency to allow economic growth while stifling the growth and even decrease usage of energy sources to address the goals to reduce CO2 emissions. The technology is there, but the leadership from government is lacking.

Global issue or not, CCES can help your company improve your energy efficiency to save you costs, raise your asset’s value, and improve productivity at the same time. In addition, we work with a number of utility and government programs who will pay YOU to be more energy efficient and save money. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Effects of Customers Going Off-Grid in Near Term

According to a recent poll, 95% of global utilities executives agree that the rate of electricity customers making changes to go off the grid and only using it as occasional backup will increase significantly in the next two years. Implementation of distributed generation (DG) technologies, such as having one’s own generation unit and solar and battery power, is increasing greatly in recent years, changing long-term strategies for utilities in terms of building new grid capacity to handle increases in electric demand. Nearly half of the respondents said that parts or all of their grid will reach maximum capacity in three years or less.

Of course, this is what most utilities wanted when they encouraged customers (residential and commercial) to install solar or their own generation units in order to relieve their stress on the grid, particularly on peak demand days. It is beginning to bear fruit in terms of the amount of investment in expanded grid infrastructure.

Other reports estimate the proportion of total (residential and commercial customers) with rooftop solar photovoltaics could exceed 15% by 2036 in some markets, such as California, reducing future net electricity demand growth and the need to invest in new power plants or related infrastructure.

A challenge for any utility is to predict just what that growth will be. Accurate modeling can help a utility forecast more accurately what their long-term capital spending needs will be. Such accurate modelling can save a utility a lot of costs or interest from borrowing and, thus, can predict future rates better. This need was ranked as the second-highest cost-saving opportunity for utilities, behind only improved forecasting of materials and fuels (supply chain unit costs).

Utilities acknowledge that DG represents a challenge to distribution utilities, providing service to customers getting their electricity from a different source, as a backup only during failure. Utilities must maintain this infrastructure and deliver when required, even if they charge little for the service. Yet it is also an opportunity, as many utilities are moving into this area as a potential growth and profit center. More than half of the respondents globally identified an ownership stake in areas such as large- and small-scale DG and community and grid-connected storage.

CCES has the experts to help your firm control its energy usage and cost and provide technical services to determine if implementing DG is in your financial interest. We can also provide you with information on incentives for solar, wind, or your own generation in your specific area. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Changing Work Patterns And Office Space Planning

The office environment has changed radically in recent years, affecting space allocations, planning, and energy. Gone are the days when most office workers sat at their desks all day and perhaps used a rare conference room for a meeting or two. Technology and social changes have transformed workplaces, resulting in what experts call the “liquid workforce”.

Today, according to surveys, more than half of all workers spend significant time away from their office desks, either working from home or remote offices or holding meetings or other sessions away from the desk. The average knowledge worker sits at his/her desk only 40% of the time. According to JLL survey, 43% of respondents indicated that enclosed offices now constitute less than 5% of their sites.

Occupancy data is changing how space should be used.
Surveys indicate that office workers spend over 80% of their time doing collaborative work. Every year the number of people working from home, cafes, outside coworking spaces and even alternative spaces within their own workplace is increasing.

Companies are spending more resources tracking occupancy metrics as a first step to a more optimized real estate portfolio. According to JLL, companies that report metrics are twice as likely to report cost savings and avoidances. Artificial intelligence (AI) and utilization monitoring can be combined with visual observations to provide real-time utilization insights to help plan for the future.

While this is being done to reduce real estate expenses and to please current and future workforce (Millennials) to the firm, a potential disadvantage of such workplace flexibility is that more space will be underutilized as workers work elsewhere. Instead of heating or cooling an area where one knows workers will be working all day, those workers will move from space to space, potentially necessitating controlling the temperature and humidity and lighting of workspaces not being utilized in a given moment. This makes the use of occupancy sensors to control temperature or lighting more important. With improved insights of short-term occupancy, companies can move toward optimizing energy usage to provide broad range comfort and acceptable lighting to enhance worker productivity, while saving energy when spaces are not utilized.

CCES has the experts to advise you on energy conservation matters if your workspace is new or is undergoing changes. We can recommend technologies based on your knowledge to optimize worker conditions and minimize energy usage. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.