Energy Efficiency Potential

Energy efficiency potential represents the quantifiable opportunity to reduce energy consumption while maintaining or improving building performance and occupant comfort. Understanding this potential requires systematic analysis of end-use consumption patterns, technical constraints, economic feasibility, and implementation barriers.

End-Use Energy Consumption Breakdown

Building energy consumption distributes across multiple systems with varying efficiency improvement potential:

Commercial Building Energy Distribution

HVAC systems dominate commercial building energy consumption due to:

• Continuous operation requirements for ventilation
• Large thermal loads from envelope, occupants, and internal gains
• Energy-intensive phase change processes (heating, cooling, dehumidification)
• Inefficiencies in thermal energy transport and conversion

Residential Building Energy Distribution

Technical vs Economic Potential

Energy efficiency potential separates into distinct categories based on implementation constraints:

Technical Potential

Maximum achievable energy reduction using proven technologies without regard to cost:

HVAC Technical Potential Components:

• Replacement of all equipment with highest available efficiency models
• Implementation of all advanced control strategies
• Complete building envelope optimization
• Maximum economizer utilization
• Advanced heat recovery on all applicable systems
• Optimal system sizing and configuration

Technical potential typically ranges from 40-60% reduction in HVAC energy consumption for existing buildings with aged systems.

Economic Potential

Energy reduction achievable using measures that meet specified economic criteria:

Common Economic Criteria:

• Simple payback period less than 10 years
• Net present value (NPV) greater than zero at specified discount rate
• Internal rate of return (IRR) exceeding minimum threshold
• Savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) greater than 1.0
• Cost of conserved energy below current energy prices

Economic potential typically captures 60-75% of technical potential, representing 25-45% total HVAC energy reduction.

Market Potential

Realistic energy reduction considering implementation barriers:

Barrier Categories:

• Split incentives (owner/tenant relationship)
• Capital availability and financing constraints
• Technical expertise and workforce capacity
• Building access and disruption tolerance
• Technology awareness and risk perception
• Regulatory and permitting requirements

Market potential typically achieves 40-60% of economic potential, representing 10-30% actual HVAC energy reduction in practice.

Efficiency Improvement Opportunities by System Type

Central Chilled Water Systems

Technical Approach: Chiller plant optimization follows the relationship:

kW/ton = (Compressor Power + Pump Power + Tower Fan Power) / Cooling Load

Each component offers distinct improvement pathways:

• Compressor efficiency improves with higher evaporator temperature and lower condenser temperature
• Pump power decreases with the cube of flow reduction (affinity laws)
• Tower fan power reduces similarly with VFD implementation

Packaged Rooftop Units

Performance Considerations: RTU efficiency depends on integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), which accounts for part-load performance:

IEER = 0.02(A) + 0.617(B) + 0.238(C) + 0.125(D)

Where A, B, C, D represent EER at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% capacity respectively.

Boiler Systems

Efficiency Fundamentals: Boiler efficiency correlates directly with stack temperature and excess air:

η = (Heat Output) / (Fuel Input) = 1 - (Stack Loss + Jacket Loss + Blowdown Loss)

Stack loss dominates, calculated as:

Stack Loss = (Stack Temp - Ambient Temp) × K × (% Excess Air + constant)

Condensing operation recovers latent heat, increasing efficiency from 80-85% to 90-98%.

Air Distribution Systems

Fan Power Relationships: Fan power follows affinity laws, creating cubic relationship with flow:

P₂/P₁ = (Q₂/Q₁)³

Reducing airflow by 20% decreases fan power by approximately 49%, demonstrating the high efficiency potential in variable volume operation.

ASHRAE Energy Auditing Standards

ASHRAE Standard 211 defines systematic energy audit procedures with three levels:

Level I - Walk-Through Assessment

Scope:

• Visual inspection of building and systems
• Energy consumption analysis from utility bills
• Identification of obvious energy waste
• Low-cost/no-cost measure recommendations

Deliverables:

• Energy use intensity (EUI) benchmark comparison
• List of immediate operational improvements
• Preliminary assessment of major system condition
• Recommended next steps for detailed analysis

Typical Cost: $0.05-0.15/ft²

Level II - Energy Survey and Analysis

Required Analysis:

• Detailed building and systems inventory
• End-use energy breakdown development
• Energy conservation measure (ECM) identification and evaluation
• Financial analysis with simple payback and NPV
• Utility rate structure analysis

Engineering Calculations:

• Heat transfer through envelope (Q = U × A × ΔT)
• Equipment efficiency at operating conditions
• Annual energy consumption by end use
• Savings calculations for each ECM

Deliverables:

• Comprehensive energy audit report
• ECM recommendations with financial analysis
• Energy model calibration (if applicable)
• Implementation prioritization

Typical Cost: $0.15-0.50/ft²

Level III - Detailed Survey and Analysis

Scope:

• Engineering analysis with detailed measurements
• Sub-metering and data logging
• Calibrated energy model development
• Investment-grade financial analysis
• Construction-level design for major ECMs

Measurement Requirements:

• Electrical demand and consumption by system
• Flow rates and temperatures in hydronic systems
• Airflow measurements and distribution
• Operating schedules and control sequences
• Indoor environmental quality parameters

Deliverables:

• Investment-grade audit report
• Detailed engineering calculations and models
• Implementation specifications
• Measurement and verification (M&V) plan
• Risk analysis and uncertainty quantification

Typical Cost: $0.50-2.00/ft²

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Methods

Simple Payback Period

Most common screening metric:

SPP = Initial Cost / Annual Savings

Advantages:

• Simple calculation and communication
• No discount rate assumption required
• Direct measure of capital recovery time

Limitations:

• Ignores time value of money
• Does not account for measure lifetime
• Cannot compare measures with different lifetimes

Typical Acceptance Criteria:

• Owner-occupied buildings: SPP less than 5-7 years
• Speculative development: SPP less than 2-3 years
• Performance contracting: SPP less than equipment life

Net Present Value

Accounts for time value of money over analysis period:

NPV = Σ(Savings_t / (1+r)^t) - Initial Cost

Where:

• Savings_t = annual savings in year t
• r = discount rate (typically 3-8%)
• t = year (1 to analysis period)

Decision Rule: Implement all measures with NPV greater than 0 at specified discount rate.

Internal Rate of Return

Discount rate at which NPV equals zero:

0 = Σ(Savings_t / (1+IRR)^t) - Initial Cost

Application: Compare IRR to minimum acceptable rate of return (MARR):

• Municipal projects: MARR typically 3-5%
• Commercial projects: MARR typically 8-15%
• Industrial projects: MARR typically 12-20%

Savings-to-Investment Ratio

Ratio of present value savings to initial investment:

SIR = PV(Savings) / Initial Cost

Interpretation:

• SIR greater than 1.0: Cost-effective investment
• SIR greater than 2.0: Highly attractive investment
• Higher SIR indicates better return per dollar invested

Use in Portfolio Optimization: Rank measures by SIR to maximize savings under capital constraints.

Levelized Cost of Energy

Cost per unit of energy saved over measure lifetime:

LCOE = (Initial Cost × CRF + Annual O&M) / Annual Energy Savings

Where CRF (Capital Recovery Factor) = r(1+r)^n / ((1+r)^n - 1)

Decision Criterion: Implement measures where LCOE is less than current energy cost, accounting for expected escalation.

Interaction Effects and Whole-Building Analysis

Individual ECM savings do not sum linearly due to system interactions:

Critical Interaction Pathways

Lighting-HVAC Interaction:

• Lighting efficiency reduces cooling load
• Increases heating load in winter
• Net interaction typically 10-25% of lighting savings

Envelope-HVAC Interaction:

• Envelope improvements reduce equipment sizing requirements
• Enable system optimization not possible with original loads
• May allow system downsizing (20-40% capacity reduction)

Control System Interactions:

• Optimal start/stop affects other time-dependent measures
• Demand-controlled ventilation interacts with economizer operation
• Reset strategies must coordinate across systems

Whole-Building Energy Modeling

Accurate potential assessment requires integrated simulation:

Model Calibration Standards: ASHRAE Guideline 14 specifies maximum calibration error:

• Monthly data: ±5% mean bias error (MBE), 15% coefficient of variation of root mean square error (CV(RMSE))
• Hourly data: ±10% MBE, 30% CV(RMSE)

Simulation Approach:

1. Develop baseline model matching actual consumption
2. Apply individual ECMs to baseline
3. Apply combined ECM packages
4. Calculate interactive effects as difference between package savings and sum of individual savings

Implementation Prioritization Framework

Optimize ECM implementation sequence considering:

Technical Sequencing

Recommended Order:

1. Operational and control optimization (low cost, immediate savings)
2. Envelope improvements (affects equipment sizing)
3. System replacements sized for improved envelope
4. Advanced controls and monitoring (maintains performance)

Financial Optimization

Capital-Constrained Approach:

1. Rank measures by SIR
2. Implement highest SIR measures first
3. Use early savings to fund subsequent measures
4. Continue until capital exhausted or SIR threshold not met

Risk-Adjusted Evaluation

Uncertainty Factors:

• Energy price volatility (±20-50% over 10 years)
• Savings realization (actual typically 70-90% of predicted)
• Technology performance degradation (1-3% annually)
• Implementation cost variation (±15-30%)

Monte Carlo Analysis: Quantify probability distribution of financial metrics accounting for uncertainty in key parameters.

Performance Verification

Post-implementation measurement confirms realized savings:

IPMVP Options

Option A - Retrofit Isolation (Key Parameter Measurement):

• Measure key performance parameters
• Stipulate non-measured parameters
• Calculate savings from engineering equations

Option B - Retrofit Isolation (All Parameter Measurement):

• Measure all relevant parameters
• Short-term or continuous measurement
• Higher accuracy than Option A

Option C - Whole Facility:

• Compare whole-building consumption before and after
• Requires regression analysis for normalization
• Cannot isolate individual measure performance

Option D - Calibrated Simulation:

• Use energy model calibrated to actual data
• Apply routine adjustments for weather and operations
• Suitable for complex interactive measures

Normalized Savings Calculation

Adjust for variables affecting consumption:

Savings = (Baseline_adjusted - Reporting_period) ± Adjustments

Common adjustments:

• Weather normalization (heating/cooling degree days)
• Occupancy changes
• Operating schedule modifications
• Production level variations (industrial facilities)

Energy efficiency potential in buildings is substantial but requires systematic evaluation of technical feasibility, economic viability, and implementation practicality. HVAC systems offer the largest absolute savings opportunity, with typical technical potential of 40-60% reduction through combined equipment upgrades, control optimization, and operational improvements. Realizing this potential demands rigorous analysis following established standards, accurate financial modeling, and comprehensive measurement and verification protocols.

Sections