Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at https://climatecolab.org/page/readonly.
Skip navigation
10comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Shane Easter

Apr 23, 2014
01:37

Fellow


1 |
Share via:
Hi Matt, I agree with you that retro-commissioning makes a lot of sense for building owners. One question I had while thinking about your proposal is why aren't all building owners utilizing existing retro-commissioning opportunities (one such retro-commissioner: https://www.comed.com/business-savings/programs-incentives/pages/retro-commissioning.aspx) as a means for saving on costs? Are there barriers such as excessive of soft costs (e.g. paper work) that are precluding interest by businesses? What incentives might be put in place to encourage more building owners to pursue retro-commissioning? Lots of ripe opportunities in this space! -Shane

Doron Bracha

Apr 25, 2014
11:43

Member


2 |
Share via:
Retro-commissioning is indeed an effective method for improving energy efficiency of existing buildings. The link that was provided in the proposal describes it well, and here's another good resource: http://www.aceee.org/topics/commissioning-and-retrocommissioning Yet I would encourage building owners and facility managers to examine such projects holistically, and consider the life-cycle analysis and the environmental footprint of the systems. For example, replacing all the light fixtures with more efficient ones would save energy and money over time, and the payback may be pretty quick. But we need to make sure the old fixtures are reused (perhaps donated?), recycled or otherwise disposed of properly. Think about the embodied energy of the mechanical and electrical systems. The amount of resources and energy it took to extract the materials, process them, manufacture the units, package, ship and install. It all has value and environmental cost that should not be discarded. Removing systems when they've only completed a small portion of their life expectancy, is not always the greenest way to go. When the big picture is kept in mind, and a holistic approach is taken, retro-commissioning is an important and worthwhile undertaking.

Gunes Hellweger

May 27, 2014
07:14

Member


3 |
Share via:
Hi, I definitely agree that the existing buildings should go through commissioning and made more efficient. In fact, there are already some applications of this such as LEED for Existing Buildings, Operations and Maintenance. In your proposal you could outline how the retro commissioning would pay back, what kind of incentives could be given by the government and how this strategy could be presented to people. People are usually lazy and stingy and do not want to spend the money or effort to make a system work better. They take actions only when something breaks. In my opinion, you may develop your proposal by addressing these points. Best of luck, Gunesh

Derrek Clarke

Jun 4, 2014
05:33

Catalyst


4 |
Share via:
Hi Improvement of energy efficiency is a great topic and one that can't be expressed enough times, especially where existing buildings are concerned. Building operations are one of the largest contributors to GHG emissions globally. I think the above comments are spot on and can't stress enough the need to fully understand the costs involved in a complete and thorough retro-commissioning. The actual commissioning may be inexpensive, depending on building size ($.27 can start to add up quick in larger buildings!) There is also the cost to upgrade those equipments deemed inefficient. As was stated above, this is a cost that many Owners may not be willing to take if the equipment isn't already broken. I think consideration also has to be given to differences in prices globally. Appropriate incentives will have to be provided in countries where energy may be subsidized extensively and hence it is not viewed as being cost competitive to commission. Good luck!

Brian Filiatraut

Jun 16, 2014
02:42

Member


5 |
Share via:
Hello, I agree with all abovementioned comments. Just to add to the discussion and perhaps make your proposal stronger, is to add a brief example of how even the best designed/LEED certified buildings misuse energy because the facility manager doesn't properly monitor/use the technology that they have. This might stress the importance of retro-commissions every few years for all types of buildings. This sphere of continual management of data and facility vitals is on the rise, and this project could further highlight the need for such preventative checkups. Best, Brian

Dan Whittet

Jun 17, 2014
04:22

Fellow


6 |
Share via:
I think retro commissioning generally shows a high level of ROI. The next level of green building codes will include Cx activities, but the debate is still out on envelope Cx. How about some tax incentives for Retro Commissioning.

Maryette Haggerty Perrault

Jun 18, 2014
12:30

Member


7 |
Share via:
Thanks for your proposal mattisenbarger! I agree that retro-commissioning is an idea opportunity to save substantial amounts of energy in existing buildings. I think a very important topic to hit on further in your proposal is why are existing efforts regarding RCx not sufficient? And how can this proposal improve on those existing efforts to achieve the desired goals? bafiliatraut also makes a great point to keep in mind - just because a building is LEED certified buildings does not mean its currently operating efficiently. Perhaps you can leverage the new ordinances being put into place by cities and states which require the tracking of utilities in commercial buildings to encourage RCx as a first step in improving energy efficiency on a larger scale. Check out: Boston - http://www.cityofboston.gov/eeos/reporting/ New York - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/sustainability/energy_audit.shtml California - http://www.energy.ca.gov/ab1103/ Washington - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=5854 Best of luck to you! Lets get all these existing buildings retro-commissioned!

Maryette Haggerty Perrault

Jun 18, 2014
12:02

Member


8 |
Share via:
Thanks for your proposal mattisenbarger! I agree that retro-commissioning is an idea opportunity to save substantial amounts of energy in existing buildings. I think a very important topic to hit on further in your proposal is why are existing efforts regarding RCx not sufficient? And how can this proposal improve on those existing efforts to achieve the desired goals? bafiliatraut also makes a great point to keep in mind - just because a building is LEED certified buildings does not mean its currently operating efficiently. Perhaps you can leverage the new ordinances being put into place by cities and states which require the tracking of utilities in commercial buildings to encourage RCx as a first step in improving energy efficiency on a larger scale. Check out: Boston - http://www.cityofboston.gov/eeos/reporting/ New York - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/sustainability/energy_audit.shtml California - http://www.energy.ca.gov/ab1103/ Washington - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=5854 Best of luck to you! Lets get all these existing buildings retro-commissioned!

Saravanan Dhalavoi Pandian

Jun 24, 2014
02:47

Catalyst


9 |
Share via:
Hi, Great proposal and would definitely benefit the building sector to reduce its energy/carbon footprint. To strengthen you may focus on some suggestions to overcome the barriers for retro commissioning. These could be: 1. Owners are not familiar with retro-commissioning benefits / concepts 2. How to overcome the Split‐Incentive Barrier 3. How to address the major retrofits which could be expensive 4. Generally O&M staff are too busy being re-active and do not have the time and resources to be pro-active All the best, Saravanan.

Sara Magalhaes

Jul 5, 2014
12:12

Fellow


10 |
Share via:
Hi Matt! The contest deadline is near! Please don’t forget to complete your proposal so that it is easier for potential supporters to elaborate upon your ideas. Best Sara