7median savings at organizations with EIS after sevenyears and 27 percent median savings at organizationswith FDD after five years, we do not have evidenceto attribute these longer-term savings solely or evenprimarily to EMIS.In addition to helping identify savings opportunities,EMIS gives owners the ability to monitor their energysavings progress over time, which is invaluable toall energy saving efforts. Further, almost 80 percentof organizations reported using their EMIS to informretrofit strategies at their facilities, including identifyingretrofits, sizing equipment, and verifying savings(Figure 7, page 19).3.3 EMIS CostsWith cost data from 37 organizations7 implementingEIS and 35 organizations implementing FDD (or acombination of EIS and FDD within a predominantlyFDD-focused tool), the sub-cohorts were large enoughto report energy savings separately for each EMIStype. These 72 organizations encompassed 471 millionsq feet of gross floor area. The results for medianbase cost and recurring cost per square foot arepresented in Figures 11 (next page) and 12 (page27) by EMIS type, with a separate bar for eachorganization. Most organizations participating in theCampaign have large portfolios; therefore, the costsnormalized by floor area reflect these economies ofscale, with lower cost per square foot than would betypically found for smaller scale implementations.As stated in the methodology, the base cost includesthe software and installation costs, and the recurringcost includes the annual software fees and anyMBCx service provider fees that were incurred. Therange of costs observed in the Campaign data reflectsthe scope or depth of service provided with theEMIS installation, as well as the variability in industrypricing models.3. SMART ENERGY ANALYTICS CAMPAIGN RESULTSBy the second year of installation, studyparticipants with EIS achieved a median annual energysavings of 3 percent ($0.03/sq ft) and participantswith FDD tools achieved a median savings of 9 percent($0.24/sq ft). Applying these savings across theorganizations participating in the Smart EnergyAnalytics Campaign, annual savings are projected tobe 4.1 trillion Btu and $95 million once EMIS use isestablished for all organizations. Further, these savingsare likely to increase in subsequent years as additionalopportunities are uncovered.Second-year savings are emphasized, since inmany cases we found that the EMIS became betterutilized over time, as users gained experience with thetechnology and established routine processes to actupon findings. Taking action also can require a certainamount of lead time purely for practical reasons.Second-year savingsOngoing EMIS use andare therefore taken as aoperational integrationreliable representationsupports persistence ofof the benefits thatsavings and increases in EMIS provide. Assavings over timepreviously described,these savings are notattributed exclusively to the use of EMIS. However,owners shared that it was essential to have the dataand analysis readily available from their EMIS toenable savings from their overall energy managementprogram. Figure 8 reported the top energy savingmeasures identified and implemented through useof the EMIS; additional measures may also havebeen implemented.The results surfaced a three-fold increase in themedian savings achieved by users of EMIS withFDD capabilities versus those with EIS capabilities.This result stems from the nature of the software;EIS provides big-picture trends in energy usewhile FDD pinpoints faults at the equipment level.Best practice implementation includes both EIS andFDD capabilities.Ongoing EMIS use and operational integrationsupports persistence of savings and increases insavings over time. After the second year, otherprojects may be initiated, and portfolio or building-levelsavings may increase due to the EMIS or due toother efficiency projects. While we report 17 percentBase costAmong reporting organizations, the base cost persquare foot for installing and configuring FDD softwarewas five times that of EIS. There is significantly morework required to integrate the BAS data into FDDsoftware than to integrate meter data into EIS softwareEIS cost data were reported by 20 participants in the Campaign and 17 participants (Granderson et al. 2016).Berkeley Lab | Proving the Business Case for Building Analytics24
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.