Many buildings have been designed to be energy efficient, but without proper "tuning" they will never achieve their potential. Like high-performance race cars, a high-performing building has many delicate control points that need to be periodically monitored and adjusted in order to maintain peak operating efficiency.

However, this can be a time-consuming and expensive process. It is not uncommon for the engineering design team, the equipment manufacturer and the operating engineer to work for a year or more in an effort to tune up a new building so that it performs as efficiently as predicted by the design simulation.

A typical example was presented at January's AHR Expo by AHRI and ASHRAE in New York City. A building owner described the tuning up process for a large LEED Platinum office building. Not only were the high-performing HVAC and lighting systems more expensive to install, but the additional automation and monitoring equipment also cost an extra $200,000.

However, the annual energy savings prediction (based on the computer simulation) was an attractive $400,000 per year. The presenter stated that the engineering team and the operating engineers worked diligently for more than two years to reach 85 percent of their savings goal. The owner stated that the tune-up process was so sophisticated that he had to change his long-standing spendthrift philosophy and hire a new, highly-trained team of facility engineers.

Unfortunately, the above project is not typical of what one encounters in most new construction projects.

Even when buildings are properly commissioned, the austere budgetary constraints placed on most facility engineering departments results in many being understaffed. Even if the maintenance staff is trained to tune up high performing buildings, they typically spend the vast majority of their time on other assignments.

A typical example occurred a few years ago when an energy manager of a medium-sized, North Carolina city purchased energy-monitoring software that was installed in 35 city buildings. The baseline energy consumption for each building was established, and the energy-use for subsequent, comparable months was compared to the baseline via a computer dashboard.

After two years of operation, the energy manager commented that the monitoring software worked well, but the maintenance department was so busy responding to other repair calls that they seldom had time to investigate buildings that were operating inefficiently.

Some building owners follow the car tune-up analogy to the detriment of performance. Their assumption is that once completed, a building tune-up is good for at least five years. They may assign their top operations staff to the building during the tune-up process, but as soon as it's completed they reassign those key people to other projects.

This occurred in a LEED Platinum project where key operating personnel were reassigned, and the energy-monitoring system abandoned once the tune-up was completed. The consequence of operating a high-performance building with its "check engine" light disabled has resulted in reduced performance. It is anticipated that in a couple of years, the owner will initiate a new tune-up effort in order to achieve LEED recertification.

The need for highly-trained facility engineers, and for improved communications between facility engineers, design engineers, and architects has been recognized by AFE, ASHRAE and USGBC for a number of years. AFE has educational programs that lead to certifications including Certified Plant Engineer, Certified Plant Maintenance Manager, Certified Plant Supervisor, and Government Operator of High Performance Buildings.

ASHRAE has several guidelines, the objective of which is to improve communications between design engineers and facility engineers. "ASHRAE Guideline 4, Preparation of Operating and Maintenance Documentation for Building Systems" provides guidance to design engineers regarding the contents of operations and maintenance manuals that are turned over to operating engineers.

Also, "ASHRAE Guideline 32 Sustainable, High-Performance Operations and Maintenance" assists operating engineers to operate and maintain buildings to achieve high performance: safe, productive indoor environments; low economic life cycle cost; low energy, water and resource use and low impacts on the environment. These systems include the building envelope, HVAC, plumbing, complementary energy systems, utilities and electrical systems.

USGBC has a rating system, LEED For Existing Buildings: Operation and Maintenance Rating System, which has the following objectives.

• Identify the minimum program requirements that apply to major renovations and building maintenance.
• Recognize criteria used to assess a building to identify feasible LEED rating credits based on the limitation of an existing structure.
• Explain how to assemble a project team focused on LEED implementation. Describe the process of a LEED project by building function for water, electrical efficiency, usage and control rating credits.

One might expect that, with all of the above technical resources and a growing emphasis on sustainability, high-performing buildings would be commonplace. Unfortunately, based on my experience, too many new buildings are high-energy users.

In too many instances the people in charge of the purse strings view maintenance and operations as a cost center, rather than a potential profit center. Thus, when the economy slumps, maintenance is one of the first financial cuts to be made. Reduced staffing and deferred maintenance become all too typical.

I am, however, optimistic because of several factors that were discussed at the ASHRAE meeting. The first was a discussion of a building-rating system that exists in Europe and that ASHRAE is modifying for application in the U.S.

Buildings that are performing at high efficiency (energy, indoor air quality, etc.) would receive an "A" sticker that could be posted in a prominent location. Buildings with lower efficiencies would receive a "B" sticker, etc. Thus potential buyers or tenants could readily see how the building performs.

A second important development that was discussed involves changing the Standard 90.1 energy code to be an energy rating rather than a design process. This idea, originally called the Building Energy Performance Standard, was proposed 20-some years ago.

At that time, the design standard for an office building would be an energy rating of no more than 54,000 BTU/sq.ft./year. A similar standard, with adjustments for building type, hours of occupancy and climate is supposedly being developed for Standard 90.1.

Finally, utility companies have begun to provide residential and commercial customers with monthly energy-use data for comparable buildings. This data makes it easy for owners to see the relative efficiency of their buildings and how much they might save if they upgrade. In addition, many utility companies are providing rebates to those customers who decide to replace old, inefficient equipment.

In conclusion, if AFE, ASHRAE, USGBC and other technical and engineering societies work together to ensure design, construction, maintenance and operational excellence, sustainability is clearly within our reach.