EMIS ReportDesign-Prelim 2020sep11 - Flipbook - Page 19
(n = 104)
Office
39%
Higher Ed
31%
Healthcare
12%
Laboratory
8%
K-12 School
4%
Retail
4%
Food Service
1%
Grocery
1%
Hospitality
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of Organizations
FIGURE 4: Distribution of gross floor
area for organizations with planned or
installed EMIS
(n = 104)
60
48
50
40
30
25
20
9
M
0M
–2
5M
10
M
–1
5M
–1
0M
M
–5
1M
k–
1M
10
0
2
0
9
10
15
M
Number of Participants
Campaign participants were mainly in the office and
higher education market sectors, with healthcare
and government laboratories also represented
(Figure 3). The most common portfolio size was
between 1 million and 5 million sq ft (Figure 4). The
median building size with EIS installed was 91,000
sq ft, and with FDD installed was 155,000 sq ft. The
median number of buildings per portfolio with EIS
was 27 and with FDD was 8.
Almost all Campaign participants had access or
were gaining access to whole building hourly data in
addition to their monthly utility bill data, and almost
40 percent of organizations had submeter data for
tenants or end uses. Those organizations who did
not have access to whole building hourly data were
FDD users who had not integrated meter data into
their FDD software.
In addition to EIS and FDD software, the most
common analysis tools used were the BAS for
trend analysis, ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager,
spreadsheets, and utility-provided web portal to view
energy use. Campaign interviews showed that where
EIS and FDD have been implemented, operators
benefitted from expanded analysis capabilities.
About one-third of organizations are planning to
install a new EMIS soon or installed a new EMIS
during the Campaign, one-third used an existing
EMIS, and one-third upgraded their EMIS to deploy
in more buildings or add additional functionality.
Of those planning to install, 32 percent planned to
install an EIS, 42 percent planned to install FDD,
and 26 percent planned to install both EIS and
FDD technologies
Figure 5 shows the breakdown of EMIS type
chosen by Campaign participants, with the largest
portion (37%) implementing solely EIS to analyze
hourly (or more frequent) interval data. With an
additional 36% of participants installing a combined
EIS and FDD software, 73% of organizations in the
Campaign utilized EIS. Similarly, 25% of participants
installed solely FDD, and with the combined EIS and
FDD software implementation, 61% of organizations
implemented FDD to identify HVAC operational
faults. While almost all combined EIS and FDD
installations occurred within the same software
package, a few participants implemented separate
EIS and FDD software.
FIGURE 3: Organizations participating
in the Smart Energy Analytics Campaign
by market sector
3. SMART ENERGY ANALYTICS CAMPAIGN RESULTS
3.1 Characterization of Organizations
in the Campaign
Portfolio Gross Floor Area (sq ft)
FIGURE 5: Type of EMIS installed by
organizations in the Smart Energy
Analytics Campaign
(n = 85)
Berkeley Lab | Proving the Business Case for Building Analytics
EIS 37%
ASO 2%
EIS +
FDD
36%
FDD
25%
17
