Working with several Class A office buildings here in Bend on PGE's Schedule 83 (Large Non-residential). Their usage is consistently running 12-16 kWh/sq ft annually, but national CBECS data suggests office buildings should be around 14-18 kWh/sq ft. These buildings are performing better than national averages, but the property managers think they're still wasting energy. Anyone have experience with PGE territory office building benchmarks? Wondering if the mild Oregon climate skews the comparison.
Office building benchmarking - PGE vs national averages
Duane - Oregon definitely has different climate patterns than the national average. Here in Salem, our PGE office clients typically see lower cooling loads but higher lighting usage during winter months. The key is to benchmark against regional data rather than national averages. Oregon Department of Energy has some good commercial building performance data that might be more relevant than CBECS for your analysis.
I agree with Beatrice about regional benchmarking. Here in Olympia, we see similar patterns with Puget Sound Energy. Office buildings in the Pacific Northwest generally use less energy for HVAC due to mild temperatures, but we have higher baseline loads for lighting and plug loads during long winter days. What's the vintage of these buildings? Newer construction with better envelopes can significantly outperform national averages.
Vera - these are mostly 2010-2018 construction, so relatively modern with decent building envelopes and LED lighting throughout. All have energy management systems and variable air volume HVAC. I think the property managers are used to seeing higher bills from previous buildings and don't realize that 12-14 kWh/sq ft is actually pretty good performance for this region. PGE's rates are reasonable compared to California, so even efficient buildings don't see dramatic cost savings.
Duane, you might want to look at ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager for regional comparisons. They have climate-adjusted benchmarks that account for Pacific Northwest conditions. Also, for Class A office buildings, tenant density and equipment loads can vary significantly. High-tech tenants with server rooms will skew usage upward, while traditional office users might be well below your 12-16 kWh/sq ft range.
Randy - good point about tenant mix. One building has a software development company that runs servers 24/7, and their usage is closer to 18 kWh/sq ft. The others are mostly traditional office tenants - accounting firms, law offices, consulting companies. I'll check Portfolio Manager for the climate-adjusted benchmarks. PGE's Schedule 83 has pretty straightforward pricing, so at least the rate structure isn't complicating the analysis.
Duane, another factor to consider is the building automation system programming. I've seen identical buildings with 20% usage differences just based on how the BAS is configured. Temperature setpoints, scheduling, and equipment sequencing can have huge impacts. If the property managers want to optimize further, a detailed BAS audit might be worthwhile even if the buildings are already performing well.
Beatrice raises a great point about BAS optimization. I recently found a building where the economizer dampers were stuck partially open, causing simultaneous heating and cooling. The building was still within reasonable benchmarks, but was wasting about $8K annually. Sometimes "good enough" performance masks opportunities for significant improvement.
Vera, that's exactly what I'm worried about. These buildings look good on paper, but there might be hidden inefficiencies. I'm going to recommend detailed energy audits for the two highest-performing buildings to see if we can identify any low-hanging fruit. Even small improvements could add up to meaningful savings across a portfolio this size. PGE has some good incentive programs for building optimization projects.
Smart approach, Duane. I'd also suggest implementing some basic monitoring to track monthly performance trends. Sometimes buildings that look efficient annually have seasonal issues that don't show up in benchmarking analysis. Install a few revenue-grade meters on major loads and track monthly kWh/sq ft to spot any unusual patterns.
Randy's monitoring suggestion is excellent. I use interval data from PGE's smart meters to create monthly dashboards for my office building clients. Helps identify seasonal anomalies and gives property managers real-time feedback on building performance. The data export process from PGE is pretty straightforward once you get the account access set up.
Thanks everyone - this has been incredibly helpful. I think my next steps are: 1) Get Portfolio Manager benchmarks for climate-adjusted comparisons, 2) Set up monthly monitoring dashboards using PGE interval data, 3) Recommend detailed audits for the top performers to find hidden opportunities. The property managers will appreciate having data-driven recommendations rather than just "you're doing fine" feedback.
Duane, if you end up finding any interesting patterns or optimization opportunities, I'd love to hear about the results. Always looking for new approaches to office building analysis here in Washington. The Pacific Northwest has such unique climate and utility conditions that regional case studies are really valuable for all of us.
One more thought - check if any of these buildings participate in PGE's demand response programs. That can affect benchmarking analysis since the buildings might be cycling equipment during peak periods. Could explain some of the variation you're seeing if some buildings are in DR programs and others aren't. The load reduction strategies can impact overall efficiency metrics.