Question: Is it good practice to have only one type of buildings (e.g. offices) in an EPC pool, or is it advisable to mix building types (schools, offices, hospitals, etc.)? If we combine more building types, we spread/reduce the risks but at the same time, the ESCO will need to engage more energy experts (one specialized in schools, one in offices, one in hospitals, etc.). This is costly and could finally increase the risk. What is recommended?
Answer: The answer to this question is pending on the reason for composing a pool. If the idea of bringing in more buildings and categories is part of a strategy to create a critical mass making an EPC project financially/structurally possible, it probably is a good idea. However, if the reason is "risk-management" by differentiation of buildings, it may not be a good strategy. Because if there are doubts on performance guarantees for example, it may be preferable to focus on one type of building and ensure that it is assessed appropriately and that the project is carried out perfectly.
Question: Is it safe to assume that relatively new buildings with a complex HVAC-installation (e.g. heating and cooling with induction units, etc.) typically have a fairly large energy saving potential with low payback period; since significant energy saving can be achieved via 'simply' tuning the existing control systems?
Answer: This is usually true, as there is often a gap between the designing ideas, the final installation, and the actual commissioning; as well as between the initial designing ideas and the people allocated to the O&M work. To be successful in these optimisation projects, one must act as an "information coordinator" to actually be clear about what's installed and how it's intended to work. For newer buildings, the ideal method is to form a small taskforce which includes the company responsible for installing the controls and the building's head of O&M.
Question: Is it appropriate for an EPC project to combine newer offices with older offices, where replacement of windows, provision of roof insulation are required. As a result these energy saving measures will have a longer payback. Is this is a good approach?
Answer: Yes, that is a good approach. This is the very basic idea for an ESCO/EPC project, namely that you build your project based on a "portfolio" of different buildings, with some generating large savings from small investments, and others in need of substantial investments/modernisation, but which as a single project would have difficulties in financing itself.
Question: What is NPV?
Answer: NPV is the difference between project benefits (savings) and project expenses (installment investments and other customer payments to ESCOs). Both are evaluation criteria (the best is highest savings and lowest investment). And it must be accompanied by further evaluation of the quality of the project in the form of the evaluation of the complexity of the technical and financial solutions.
Question: We want to carry out a public lighting EPC, is it usually successfully implemented? Could you refer us to some good practice examples? Do you have any model contract?
Answer: Yes, we have good experience with public lightning EPC. please visit: http://www.energieautonomie-vorarlberg.at/de/einsparcontracting-oeffentliche-beleuchtung
project from 2010/2011: energy demand 1.76 Mil. kWh.
reduction by 650.000 kWh. contract duration 15 years.
Here, you can find a model contract: http://www.bmwfw.gv.at/EnergieUndBergbau/Energieeffizienz/Documents/Einsparcontracting_Mustervertrag-mit%20Kommentaren_final_Ausdruck.pdf