Webinar Q&A: Using Energy Competitions to Reduce Building Energy Use

Last week’s webinar on energy competitions generated more questions than we were able to answer during the live Q&A session, so as promised we are answering all the questions left on the table here on our blog.  You can download the presentation slides (.pdf) or sign up to view and listen to the recording: Using Energy Competitions to Reduce Building Energy Use.

Q: Do you have any feedback on building occupants and their energy-related behaviours once a competition closes? Do they experience a proverbial competition ‘hangover’ and revert to their original energy practices?

A: Extreme measures used to conserve energy like extremely low lighting levels, or turning off hot water or the coffee maker are usually abandoned once the competition ends.  However, competitions often reveal sustainable practices that can continue year round; for example after a competition we have seen our clients turn off under-used refrigerators, remove lights in areas that don’t require them, naturally ventilate a server room by opening a door, and turn off unused computers and lights.

Q: Of the 9 competitions that Pulse was involved in, what was the average savings over the long run?

A: We saw savings up to 7% over a 6 month period, but many of the competitions completed just recently, so we don’t have average, long term savings for all of them.  Some of the buildings that did well during the competition due to extreme actions that were not sustainable over the long term, and therefore they experienced little to no persistent savings.

Chart showing persistent savings after the end of a competition in October. Click image for larger view.

Q: Do the 7% (over 6 months) savings include HVAC tuning and HVAC operational savings, or is it attributed solely to behaviour change savings?

A: For both of the buildings that saw a 7% reduction over 6 months, the majority of the savings were attributable to operational changes that were made during the competition period.

Q: Can you please elaborate on the handicaps used to normalize buildings? What do these look like?

A: We use the five factors for assessing energy savings potential (total consumption, efficiency, control, influence, commitment) as feedback to attempt to figure out what an appropriate set of handicaps should be.  The goal is to make it so that each building has approximately the same potential of energy savings in order to keep the competition and race close, because that’s when people are most engaged.

Q: We have run a week long electricity (not gas) competition in dorms on campus twice.  Unfortunately, half of our dorms use electric heat and half use natural gas, so the residents in the dorms with electric heat have more ability to reduce electricity usage.  However, if the weather is unusually cold that week it hurts them.  Can you explain how your competition methodology deals with this and how it would factor into the handicap?

A: We have two approaches for dealing with this problem. First, the baseline that we build for determining savings will normalize for temperature. So the baseline will incorporate knowledge of how each building has historically performed at similar temperatures. Second, we can account for the higher level of occupancy control by assigning a slightly larger handicap to the dorms with electric heat. We can also dynamically adapt the handicap during the competition to account for changing circumstances. The only caveat is that adjusting a handicap during the competition may affect the perceived fairness of the results. Ideally the handicaps are correctly selected at the start of the competition and the five factors that we listed for assessing energy savings potential are one key mechanism for determining this.

Q: How can you measure energy savings accurately when the baselines are changing year to year, often due to additions of square footage, additional energy consuming equipment, etc?

A: The persistent savings results that I mentioned during the webinar were based on buildings that have remained relatively consistent over the 6 or more months since the competition. Accounting for changes in occupancy, square footage and equipment definitely complicates persistent savings calculation. Our approach has been to model and factor out the impact of these changes against the actual consumption in order to determine savings.

Q: According to your poll, one of the biggest challenges associated with running a competitions is measuring the results – if buildings are metered very broadly and perhaps include a dining section, how can you measure separately or isolate?

A: Many of the buildings that have participated in our energy savings competitions have only had aggregate building-level consumption monitoring. That said, buildings with more granular measurement have had an easier time correlating energy savings actions with their associated impacts (especially for large buildings). Often the top performing building in a competition has more granular metering, but we can’t say if the result is causal or just correlated.

Q: Is it possible to monitor individual computers, printers etc for a competition?

A: Yes, one of our partners installed plug meters at work stations to measure the consumption and savings of each occupant.  They were then able to get detailed assessments of energy savings once occupants were encouraged to manage the power at their stations more efficiently.

Q: What are plug meters? Recommended brands?

A: Plug meters are used to track the power draw through an outlet based on the devices plugged into it. There are a number of plug meter products available. The one that we have worked with a fair bit is the Killawatt.

Q: Have you found it is important to communicate how much of the savings are attributed to occupant behaviour versus mechanical tweaking (HVAC etc) or are people just happy to see the curve going down and feel like they’ve contributed?

A: It is important, so that occupants can understand what the impact is of optimizing or turning off different systems in their building, for example knowing how much energy was saved by adjusting air conditioning set points vs turning off the lights.

Q: Is there more peer pressure and commitment to competitions in smaller buildings?

A: Absolutely. It is certainly easier to organize participation when there are fewer people involved. Also, with smaller buildings, turning off or optimizing a few things can have a larger proportional impact.

Q: Have you worked with anyone who has implemented monetary incentives by returning the savings to the employees as part of their energy reduction competition?

A: No. I’m not sure that it would provide much incentive. For most commercial buildings, the monetary savings from a short competition is unlikely to be that lucrative. We have found that participants are more motivated by intrinsic rewards – like bragging rights over their colleagues in a different office. A symbolic prize, like a trophy, is often reward enough.

Q: Have you considered using the Energy Star baseline for a building?

A: We do use Energy Star to help baseline buildings. An Energy Star rating (or other benchmark) can help indicate the potential for energy savings for a specific building. We have found benchmark information to be a useful additional data point when determining an appropriate savings handicap.