Before the Performance Period

Option 1: Commissioning Process

In-house audits can fall short of the credit intent if conducted by inexperienced staff. In-house audits sometimes identify few meaningful energy conservation measures. More successful audits uncover low-cost, high-payback opportunities in the reconfiguring of operations schedules, system set-points and lighting technologies (such as adjusting or recalibrating system controls, replacement of T12s with T8s, use of low-wattage lamps, and other strategies) during the audit.

Upfront costs for commissioning are likely to be greater than those for the ASHRAE Level II Audit.

Projects interested in pursuing EAc2.3: Existing Building Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning should use Option 1 (commissioning) to pursue this credit. Option 2 (auditing) does not support EAc2.3.

Because commissioning is generally a more rigorous and technical process, the ASHRAE audit may present the easiest opportunity to meet the requirements of this credit with in-house staff.

Although auditing activities can approach the level of rigor and investigation of commissioning, the specific procedures of the ASHRAE Level II Audit employs lower levels of equipment testing compared to

commissioning is particularly good at finding hidden problems, like the plenum here which has been cut through to allow for a straight run of piping.

Auditing may be more cost-effective for all other buildings.

Commissioning is often appropriate for buildings with the following characteristics:

Most buildings will benefit from commissioning or auditing activities but buildings with an Energy Star rating of 40–70 generally have the best opportunity to uncover cost-effective energy savings.