Building energy star simulations let the system designer evaluate the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) technology and control techniques before making the final design decision. The degree of sophistication of these tools differs from one another. Some tools examine specific HVAC system components, such as motors, based on simplified assumptions about the component’s energy usage, such as the number of lighting hours the system is expected to run in a year. This memo extensively analysis and reports if the building’s anticipated energy use might meet the GSA’s ENERGY STAR requirement. The analysis provides the estimated ENERGY STAR Target Finder score and the building’s annual energy costs and rate of greenhouse gas emissions at that score. It reveals high EUI values from their structure, which resulted in decreased power conservation and efficiency. Based on the analysis, Air conditioning units consume a significant amount of power that may be used in other ways. Moreover, the analysis assumes that the project plans to lease the building to the GSA using a full-service gross lease. The memo discusses the impact that the difference in energy consumption will have on the NOI and, using a 5.5% market capitalization rate, discusses the difference that the alternative energy consumption rate will have on the asset’s value. The project has sustained a decreased effectiveness in overall power usage. The total energy star rating of 60 indicates that the firm complies with the fundamental rules to a lesser extent. Consequently, the project recorded a rating less than or equal to the objective score of 75. All calculations should be reported as per square foot and whole-building basis. Based on the analysis, the memo recommends that the project may enhance its rating by engaging in sustainable power supplies. For instance, adopting environmental illumination reduces the overall power expenses associated with Project activities.
To optimize their profitability, numerous projects seek to align their operations with the required electricity ratings. Organizations may utilize these ratings to reduce their total energy consumption habits to enhance overall sustainability and organizational protection. Enterprise owners may lower their project’s energy use while promoting ecological protection via such activities. This document assesses the project’s capacity to integrate energy-efficient ideas and solutions into the design of its products and services. The energy design guideline is structured progressively, describing the behaviors, beliefs, and intervention tactics that projects s must adopt to maximize their cumulative nature conservation and power use decrements. The primary purpose is to reduce the project’s overall energy consumption to a level equal to or better than a specific reference to get a rating of 75 or above. The next step, dubbed assessment of the power architecture, requires projects s to examine their current consumption levels and compare them to their intended levels. The third step is to capture the power purpose to understand the specified intended score and electricity use levels. Projects may utilize this phase to compare their current score to the industry’s national average rating.
The information provided here forms the framework for the final analysis. The comparison is made using Pittsburgh’s estimated electricity pricing, 9 cents per kilowatt (EIA, n.d). It is possible to assess future trends in the enterprise’s total energy use, which is projected to be 270000 kWh yearly, employing this knowledge and theories. The analysis focuses on the Cost of energy at different energy ratings and how it impacts NOI, Commercial rates are used, and cents represent the Cost. Lastly, the Target energy is represented by the dollar.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are complex gases that trap heat or longwave infrared energy. Because of their existence in the atmosphere, the Earth’s surface becomes warmer. The sun’s shortwave radiation or sunlight flows easily through these substances and the environment. Releasing greenhouse gases is standard in industrial and project contexts because they are the outcome of the everyday activity of several departments (Ritchie & Roser, 2020; An & Pivo, 2020 ). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of the institutions tasked with influencing more significant ecological preservation decisions. The institution has made steps to better its overall connection with the environment, including pushing projects to reduce its carbon emissions. The project received a higher overall score for cumulative GHC emissions than its goal. This may be explained by the decreasing dependence on nonrenewable energy sources for electricity generation. The tendency impacts the total emission levels that have been measured and the techniques and equipment that have been adopted to ensure maximum efficacy.
The severity of power consumption (EUI) is a metric used to measure the overall efficacy of a construction project or construction. EUI is measured in units of energy per square foot or per square meter per year. To calculate it, divide the amount of electricity and natural gas used by the building in a given year by its entire gross floor area. For each square foot of the construction, the statistic considers the size of the structure and its annual utilization. It is calculated by dividing cumulative power consumption by the total area of the supporting structure’s floor covering. Because of their organizational structure, the project design displayed high EUI values, which resulted in lower power conservation and efficiency. Air conditioning equipment uses a substantial quantity of electricity that may otherwise be utilized for other purposes. Consequently, the organization is underproductive in total power use compared to its floor space.
The more proper goal technique analysis resulted in a threshold rating of 60, lower than 75, which is the minimum needed threshold for the examination. A variety of factors influences the rating provided in this research. For example, one of these factors is that the project uses low-consumption equipment, which affects the overall functioning of the project. The project has maintained a stronger connection with the planned degree of energy efficiency since it uses classic lighting fixtures, which is equivalent to the claim made above. These fixtures have a large consumption pattern, which influences the overall amount of money spent during the predicted time frame.
Metrics Comparison for the Design and Target
Based on the energy star rating calculations above, the project has seen a trend that indicates that its corporate operations are out of sync with predicted power use patterns. The overall energy star rating of 60 shows that the project does not comply with the essential criteria more than the industry average. Since reporting million tons 477.6 of CO2, the project’s total GHG emissions have shown that the project’s chances of limiting atmospheric deterioration have declined dramatically. This tendency contrasts the target and average features, with the latter receiving a lower ranking than the former. Consequently, the achievement of intended pollution reduction and protection of the environment goals will be conditional on the organization’s efficacy in the project setting.
One of the project’s main concerns is the projected savings that would result from the switch to renewable energy resources. Since the new technique will reduce emissions and total space consumption per unit of space, the project will realize considerable cost savings due to the implementation. Total power usage for the design project totals $83,104, less than the target estimate of $66,834. Its efficacy will be determined by its ability to preserve money via energy savings and pollution reductions, among other things. The project will be competitively prepared to boost growth while simultaneously reducing pollution due to the approach. As a result of reduced overall pollutants, the project’s ability to fulfill the defined ecological sustainability targets will be increased. The section highlights how the objective design will enable the project to decrease expenditures while enhancing its total gross operational profitability significantly.
Based on these findings, the firm is underused to maximize operational effectiveness and lower total power consumption. As a result, by focusing only on harmonizing its operations and standards, the project has proven unable to react to future changes in the business environment.
Conclusively, a lower score (60) on the energy intake target finder was awarded to the project compared to other projects that obtained goal estimations of 75 or higher. The grade shows that various project features contribute to its overall poor performance. One of the issues that have influenced the project’s operations and the quality it has received is the project’s capacity to develop a strong relationship with energy-saving trends. As a result, the project has not successfully communicated the full advantages of its energy savings and spending habits to its customers. The heating and air conditioning systems are among the areas of concern for the project, which is evaluating and improving them. Regardless of whether or not a room is used, the project cools and heats the whole floor area. Significant energy savings will be realized due to reduced heating and cooling schedules.
According to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, the other industry seems to be significantly dependent on nonrenewable energy sources. These pollutants hurt project operations and may result in a worse overall score in the future. Finally, this enables the project manager to develop a new standard compared to commercial patterns to estimate its energy usage. The preceding phase will serve as an outstanding model for strengthening the organizational strengths to attain the envisioned power conservation reasons from a different perspective. Another point of view is that the organization will focus on delicately allocating reserves according to the areas that demand energy conservation, emphasizing renewable energy sources.
By using renewable energy sources, the project may be able to retain or improve its overall grade. For example, environmental lighting can decrease the total electricity costs related to the project’s project operations. Similar to this, the project may be able to retain or improve its credit rating by focusing on the prudent use of its assets. The elimination of petroleum and nonrenewable sources will boost the project’s capacity to reduce pollutants and improve operational effectiveness, which will benefit the environment. According to the project’s power management reference strategy, the progress of the electricity planning phase may be given a higher amount of attention. This tool will assist the project in understanding the potential ramifications of its current energy consumption practices.
Moreover, throughout the year, ventilation systems, heat pumps, and other forms of motor-driven equipment may require a significant amount of electricity. On the other hand, Motors may change fast due to their standard size – the adjustments necessary for different parts of the system are small compared. To get the most satisfactory results from a motor repair, the equipment that will be improved must be picked with care and consideration. Motor replacements should be concentrated on fans and pumps with extensive running schedules to optimize savings.
An, X., & Pivo, G. (2020). Green buildings in commercial mortgage‐backed securities: The effects of LEED and energy star certification on default risk and loan terms. Real Estate Economics, 48(1), 7-42.
Energy Information Administration. “Electric Power Monthly.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.
ENERGY STAR. “Follow ENERGY STAR Design Guidance.” ENERGY STAR | The Simple Choice for Energy Efficiency, www.energystar.gov/buildings/resources_topic/commercial_new_construction/design_guidance. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.
Energystar.gov. “Use EPA’s Target Finder Calculator.” ENERGY STAR | The Simple Choice for Energy Efficiency, www.energystar.gov/targetfinder. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.
Epa.gov. “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” US EPA, 21 July 2021, www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.
Tools.usps.com. “ZIP Code™ Lookup | USPS.” USPS.com® – USPS Tracking®, tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction!input.action. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.
Zobler, N., & Hatcher, K. (2021). Choosing the Right Financing And How to Use ENERGY STAR® Tools. In How to Finance Energy Management Projects (pp. 55-83). River Publishers.