Premium Sample Reports
Premium Sample Reports
Under the WegoWise Premium subscription, we deliver the following reports in pdf format to present actionable information and answers to common questions property managers and owners have about their buildings' utility data. Samples for each of these reports are included below.
Report
Schedule
Potential Audience
1. Spike Tracking Report Flag meters where energy and water use is higher than expected, comparing a meter to itself. Identify the meters with problems (water leaks, equipment faults) or billing errors. Are my meters performing as expected? Which ones are high?
Monthly
Building Maintenance Regional Managers
Annually
Building Maintenance Regional Managers Asset Managers Operations Executives
Quarterly
CFO, Finance Department Regional Managers Asset Managers Operations Executives
Quarterly
Building Maintenance Regional Managers Asset Managers Operations Executives
2. Building Opportunity Report Evaluate energy and water for each building in the portfolio with targeted recommendations, prioritized by size of savings opportunity. Use budgets efficiently by focusing on the biggest “bang for the buck.” How is each building in my portfolio doing? What should I do to improve? Which buildings should I focus on first?
3. Property Performance Summary Summarize energy and water costs for each property, and highlight variances. How much am I spending on utilities? How is spending changing from last year to this year? How is the rate changing?
4. Measurement & Verification Report Analysis for specific upgrade projects. Control for weather changes to see exactly how much money projects are saving. Are my upgrade projects saving energy and water? Am I seeing the savings I was promised?
Spike Tracking Report WegoWise March 2016
Electric Date Property Mar-16 Sunset Acres Mar-16 Honeywell Estates
Building 117 Deion Flat 2132 Pattie Walk
Account #4425620217 #8838382774
Spike (kWh) 2,309 1,159
Cost of Spike $485 $228
Spike Severity uuu uu
Account #31396731 #5967682425 #7826276343
Spike (Therms) 253 79 40
Cost of Spike $304 $107 $52
Spike Severity uuu uuu u
Account #3145638410 #3145638410 #6284855803
Spike (Gallons) 90,081 49,012 17,088
Cost of Spike $1,081 $588 $225
Spike Severity uuu uu u
Gas Date Mar-16 Mar-16 Mar-16
Property Monterey Court Sunset Acres Sunset Acres
Building 395 Giovanna Mission 6251 Stephany Mountain 405 Coralie Manors
Water Date Feb-16 Mar-16 Feb-16
Property Monterey Court Monterey Court Harbor Court
Building 7923 Olga Ramp 7099 Metz Ferry 812 Derek Loop
About this analysis The table above highlights the most important usage spikes that have exceeded the usage predicted by WegoWise's weather -adjusted model, which is built for each meter based on its historical usage. The severity of each spike is indicated by diamond symbols, which correspond to the degree that the most recent data point exceeded the model’s prediction. When prioritizing spikes to address, take into consideration both the cost incurred from the spike as well as the degree to which the meter strayed from its model. Least Severe u
uu
uuu
uuuu Most Severe
WegoWise has identified a spike. Now what?
Discovering the cause of the spike requires a process of elimination. Ask yourself the following questions: Has maintenance work or construction recently occurred in the building? Depending on the type of work that was in progress, it is very plausible that electric, gas or water usage would increase. Has mechanical equipment been replaced or added to the building? A difference in utility usage can sometimes be attributed to a change in mechanical equipment. Has there been a change in occupancy? The number of occupants can directly impact electric, gas and water usage. If you answered “No” to all of the above questions, then the most recent bill for the meter should be checked for accuracy. It is possible that your utility company has misread your meter and overbilled you, or the bill may be a correction of a previous mistake. On-site staff should check the meter and when appropriate, follow up with tenants.
Electric Check for broken or left-on appliances and HVAC equipment, broken or faulty electric meters
Gas Check for malfunctioning appliances and gas-fueled HVAC equipment, as well as faulty gas pipes or meters
Water Check for leaking or broken fixtures, failing toilet flappers, leaking pipes, incorrectly scheduled irrigation
Questions? Call or email your WegoWise Client Manager!
Property Performance Summary WegoWise Q1 2016 Summary Q1 2015
Q1 2016
Variation
Year over Year Spend Variation
$136,698
$140,567
$3,869
+3%
kWh
Total Cost
Rate ($/kWh)
Q1 2016 Q1 2015
295,662 305,557
$65,046 $52,094
$0.22 $0.17
Variation
-9,895 -3%
$12,951 25%
$0.05 29%
Therms
Total Cost
Rate ($/therm)
Q1 2016 Q1 2015
29,801 36,095
$27,946 $32,050
$0.94 $0.89
Variation
-6,293 -17%
-$4,104 -13%
$0.05 6%
Gallons
Total Cost
Rate ($/gal)
Q1 2016 Q1 2015
2,460,293 2,878,705
$47,575 $52,554
$0.019 $0.018
Variation
-418,413 -15%
-$4,978 -9%
$0.001 6%
All Utilities Spend
Electric
Gas
Water
Whole Building
+25%
Whole Building
-13%
Whole Building
-9%
Building Opportunity Report WegoWise 2015 - 2016 Current Spend: $60,923
Potential Savings: $20,825 Focus on gas
4/2015 - 3/2016
Median
Potential Savings
$60,923
$40,098
$20,825
Cost
$4,284
$3,337
$947
Usage (kWh)
39,926
30,868
9,058
$40,682
$24,991
$15,692
43,253
24,751
18,502
$15,957
$11,770
$4,186
2,092,636
1,543,600
549,036
Total Electric Gas
Cost Usage (therms)
Water
Cost Usage (gal)
Recommendations In this building, natural gas is the biggest opportunity to cut utility bills. Specifically, a weather-adjusted regression analysis of your data reveals the Heating Efficiency of the building is high relative to comparable buildings, which means the building is using too much gas to deliver a given amount of heating. Save on Heating: § Maintenance of furnaces and boilers This building: 14.6 can save enough in gas to cover the cost of the service, sometimes in one heating season. 5 10 15 § Learn about more efficient heating Best Median Worst options at http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/ Heating Efficiency (btu/sqft/deg/day) furnaces-and-boilers
*How was this calculated?
While this analysis uses all available data and rigorous statistical analysis, these recommendations should be viewed as suggested areas to investigate. Onsite experts will be able to determine if the savings suggested here are feasible.
Utility costs are based on actual billing information (when available) or regional cost averages from US EIA. Median building performance is obtained from the WegoWise database or publicly available datasets, and potential savings is either the difference between this building and the median or a 20% savings for extreme outliers. Recommendations are developed by WegoWise, applying regression analysis where applicable.
Measurement & Verification Report WegoWise Through June 2016 201 South St Boston, MA 02111
Boiler Upgrade
Replaced the original boiler with an updated system
Retrofit completed January 2014
Financial Performance Project Costs:
$ 10,000
Payback:
3.8 years*
Annual Cost Avoidance: Cumulative Cost Avoidance:
$ 2,600/year* $ 6,840 (30 Months)
Savings Analysis Pre-project Savings Target:
20%
Annual Savings: Cumulative Savings:
1,989 therms/year* 5,301 therms (30 Months)
Cumulative Percent Savings:
43%*
*Calculated from 30 months of post retrofit data
1
Is this project saving energy?
The chart below shows performance over the 2.5 years since the project was implemented.
The graphs illustrate the impact of the project on energy consumption. The baseline model, displayed as a grey line on the graph, represents the projected usage of the building in the absence of the upgrade. This baseline is developed using a five-parameter statistical regression. It is a model of the building’s preproject usage pattern, based on historical usage and weather data. The dotted green line shows the building’s actual usage and the light-blue vertical line represents the time period in which the retrofit was implemented. The grey shaded area, the fixed-fit window, is the range of data that is used to create the weather-normalized model.
How was this calculated? The baseline model employed in this analysis complies with the methodology outlined in ASHRAE 14-2002 (Whole Building Performance Approach), and Option C of the IPMVP protocol. The pre-retrofit baseline model fits sufficiently with the empirical data (R2=0.99). The coefficient of variation (root mean squared error) is .9% and net determination bias is 0.01%.
2
Is the project on target? During the planning for the project, a target of 20% therm savings was determined. This chart shows the cumulative therm savings for the five years after the project was implemented. The horizontal dashed line represents the five-year target.
Five Year Savings Analysis 6,000 Cumulative Savings (Therms)
5,000 Target Savings 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 -
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Projected Savings Versus Target The project has exceeded its five-year 20% target after only 2 years of postretrofit performance.
3
Monthly Savings and Cost Avoidance Breakdown This table outlines the monthly baseline and actual usage quantities for gas consumption, effective rate for this meter, and cost avoidance. This offers an accurate assessment of how much less/more was spent due to the retrofit. Baseline Month (Therms) Jan-14 900 Feb-14 762 Mar-14 714 Apr-14 416 May-14 202 Jun-14 118 Jul-14 120 Aug-14 120 Sep-14 146 Oct-14 278 Nov-14 555 Dec-14 673 Jan-15 899 Feb-15 926 Mar-15 723 Apr-15 373 May-15 161 Jun-15 148 Jul-15 120 Aug-15 120 Sep-15 118 Oct-15 280 Nov-15 371 Dec-15 456 Jan-16 771 Feb-16 668 Mar-16 499 Apr-16 387 May-16 254 Jun-16 122
Actual (Therms) 529 429 355 199 155 108 109 116 117 155 270 333 488 445 335 169 122 116 117 118 127 149 181 235 387 408 331 219 153 121
Savings (Therms) 371 334 359 218 47 9 11 5 29 122 284 340 410 481 388 204 39 32 3 2 (9) 131 190 222 383 260 168 169 101 1
Savings % 41% 44% 50% 52% 23% 8% 9% 4% 20% 44% 51% 51% 46% 52% 54% 55% 24% 21% 3% 2% -8% 47% 51% 49% 50% 39% 34% 44% 40% 0%
Effective Rate ($/Therms) $1.30 $1.28 $1.31 $1.45 $1.60 $1.69 $1.68 $1.65 $1.64 $1.59 $1.33 $1.29 $1.18 $1.09 $1.15 $1.36 $1.57 $1.53 $1.51 $1.50 $1.40 $1.45 $1.44 $1.49 $1.30 $1.16 $1.22 $1.22 $1.30 $1.39
Cost Avoidance $482.82 $427.90 $469.74 $315.25 $74.21 $15.97 $18.27 $7.76 $47.20 $194.12 $376.54 $438.40 $482.52 $522.79 $446.69 $277.29 $61.98 $48.29 $4.93 $3.53 -$12.60 $189.84 $273.91 $329.94 $499.61 $302.03 $204.08 $205.35 $131.59 $0.72
4
Under the WegoWise Premium subscription, we deliver the following reports in pdf format to present actionable information and answers to common questions property managers and owners have about their buildings' utility data. Samples for each of these reports are included below.
Report
Schedule
Potential Audience
1. Spike Tracking Report Flag meters where energy and water use is higher than expected, comparing a meter to itself. Identify the meters with problems (water leaks, equipment faults) or billing errors. Are my meters performing as expected? Which ones are high?
Monthly
Building Maintenance Regional Managers
Annually
Building Maintenance Regional Managers Asset Managers Operations Executives
Quarterly
CFO, Finance Department Regional Managers Asset Managers Operations Executives
Quarterly
Building Maintenance Regional Managers Asset Managers Operations Executives
2. Building Opportunity Report Evaluate energy and water for each building in the portfolio with targeted recommendations, prioritized by size of savings opportunity. Use budgets efficiently by focusing on the biggest “bang for the buck.” How is each building in my portfolio doing? What should I do to improve? Which buildings should I focus on first?
3. Property Performance Summary Summarize energy and water costs for each property, and highlight variances. How much am I spending on utilities? How is spending changing from last year to this year? How is the rate changing?
4. Measurement & Verification Report Analysis for specific upgrade projects. Control for weather changes to see exactly how much money projects are saving. Are my upgrade projects saving energy and water? Am I seeing the savings I was promised?
Spike Tracking Report WegoWise March 2016
Electric Date Property Mar-16 Sunset Acres Mar-16 Honeywell Estates
Building 117 Deion Flat 2132 Pattie Walk
Account #4425620217 #8838382774
Spike (kWh) 2,309 1,159
Cost of Spike $485 $228
Spike Severity uuu uu
Account #31396731 #5967682425 #7826276343
Spike (Therms) 253 79 40
Cost of Spike $304 $107 $52
Spike Severity uuu uuu u
Account #3145638410 #3145638410 #6284855803
Spike (Gallons) 90,081 49,012 17,088
Cost of Spike $1,081 $588 $225
Spike Severity uuu uu u
Gas Date Mar-16 Mar-16 Mar-16
Property Monterey Court Sunset Acres Sunset Acres
Building 395 Giovanna Mission 6251 Stephany Mountain 405 Coralie Manors
Water Date Feb-16 Mar-16 Feb-16
Property Monterey Court Monterey Court Harbor Court
Building 7923 Olga Ramp 7099 Metz Ferry 812 Derek Loop
About this analysis The table above highlights the most important usage spikes that have exceeded the usage predicted by WegoWise's weather -adjusted model, which is built for each meter based on its historical usage. The severity of each spike is indicated by diamond symbols, which correspond to the degree that the most recent data point exceeded the model’s prediction. When prioritizing spikes to address, take into consideration both the cost incurred from the spike as well as the degree to which the meter strayed from its model. Least Severe u
uu
uuu
uuuu Most Severe
WegoWise has identified a spike. Now what?
Discovering the cause of the spike requires a process of elimination. Ask yourself the following questions: Has maintenance work or construction recently occurred in the building? Depending on the type of work that was in progress, it is very plausible that electric, gas or water usage would increase. Has mechanical equipment been replaced or added to the building? A difference in utility usage can sometimes be attributed to a change in mechanical equipment. Has there been a change in occupancy? The number of occupants can directly impact electric, gas and water usage. If you answered “No” to all of the above questions, then the most recent bill for the meter should be checked for accuracy. It is possible that your utility company has misread your meter and overbilled you, or the bill may be a correction of a previous mistake. On-site staff should check the meter and when appropriate, follow up with tenants.
Electric Check for broken or left-on appliances and HVAC equipment, broken or faulty electric meters
Gas Check for malfunctioning appliances and gas-fueled HVAC equipment, as well as faulty gas pipes or meters
Water Check for leaking or broken fixtures, failing toilet flappers, leaking pipes, incorrectly scheduled irrigation
Questions? Call or email your WegoWise Client Manager!
Property Performance Summary WegoWise Q1 2016 Summary Q1 2015
Q1 2016
Variation
Year over Year Spend Variation
$136,698
$140,567
$3,869
+3%
kWh
Total Cost
Rate ($/kWh)
Q1 2016 Q1 2015
295,662 305,557
$65,046 $52,094
$0.22 $0.17
Variation
-9,895 -3%
$12,951 25%
$0.05 29%
Therms
Total Cost
Rate ($/therm)
Q1 2016 Q1 2015
29,801 36,095
$27,946 $32,050
$0.94 $0.89
Variation
-6,293 -17%
-$4,104 -13%
$0.05 6%
Gallons
Total Cost
Rate ($/gal)
Q1 2016 Q1 2015
2,460,293 2,878,705
$47,575 $52,554
$0.019 $0.018
Variation
-418,413 -15%
-$4,978 -9%
$0.001 6%
All Utilities Spend
Electric
Gas
Water
Whole Building
+25%
Whole Building
-13%
Whole Building
-9%
Building Opportunity Report WegoWise 2015 - 2016 Current Spend: $60,923
Potential Savings: $20,825 Focus on gas
4/2015 - 3/2016
Median
Potential Savings
$60,923
$40,098
$20,825
Cost
$4,284
$3,337
$947
Usage (kWh)
39,926
30,868
9,058
$40,682
$24,991
$15,692
43,253
24,751
18,502
$15,957
$11,770
$4,186
2,092,636
1,543,600
549,036
Total Electric Gas
Cost Usage (therms)
Water
Cost Usage (gal)
Recommendations In this building, natural gas is the biggest opportunity to cut utility bills. Specifically, a weather-adjusted regression analysis of your data reveals the Heating Efficiency of the building is high relative to comparable buildings, which means the building is using too much gas to deliver a given amount of heating. Save on Heating: § Maintenance of furnaces and boilers This building: 14.6 can save enough in gas to cover the cost of the service, sometimes in one heating season. 5 10 15 § Learn about more efficient heating Best Median Worst options at http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/ Heating Efficiency (btu/sqft/deg/day) furnaces-and-boilers
*How was this calculated?
While this analysis uses all available data and rigorous statistical analysis, these recommendations should be viewed as suggested areas to investigate. Onsite experts will be able to determine if the savings suggested here are feasible.
Utility costs are based on actual billing information (when available) or regional cost averages from US EIA. Median building performance is obtained from the WegoWise database or publicly available datasets, and potential savings is either the difference between this building and the median or a 20% savings for extreme outliers. Recommendations are developed by WegoWise, applying regression analysis where applicable.
Measurement & Verification Report WegoWise Through June 2016 201 South St Boston, MA 02111
Boiler Upgrade
Replaced the original boiler with an updated system
Retrofit completed January 2014
Financial Performance Project Costs:
$ 10,000
Payback:
3.8 years*
Annual Cost Avoidance: Cumulative Cost Avoidance:
$ 2,600/year* $ 6,840 (30 Months)
Savings Analysis Pre-project Savings Target:
20%
Annual Savings: Cumulative Savings:
1,989 therms/year* 5,301 therms (30 Months)
Cumulative Percent Savings:
43%*
*Calculated from 30 months of post retrofit data
1
Is this project saving energy?
The chart below shows performance over the 2.5 years since the project was implemented.
The graphs illustrate the impact of the project on energy consumption. The baseline model, displayed as a grey line on the graph, represents the projected usage of the building in the absence of the upgrade. This baseline is developed using a five-parameter statistical regression. It is a model of the building’s preproject usage pattern, based on historical usage and weather data. The dotted green line shows the building’s actual usage and the light-blue vertical line represents the time period in which the retrofit was implemented. The grey shaded area, the fixed-fit window, is the range of data that is used to create the weather-normalized model.
How was this calculated? The baseline model employed in this analysis complies with the methodology outlined in ASHRAE 14-2002 (Whole Building Performance Approach), and Option C of the IPMVP protocol. The pre-retrofit baseline model fits sufficiently with the empirical data (R2=0.99). The coefficient of variation (root mean squared error) is .9% and net determination bias is 0.01%.
2
Is the project on target? During the planning for the project, a target of 20% therm savings was determined. This chart shows the cumulative therm savings for the five years after the project was implemented. The horizontal dashed line represents the five-year target.
Five Year Savings Analysis 6,000 Cumulative Savings (Therms)
5,000 Target Savings 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 -
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Projected Savings Versus Target The project has exceeded its five-year 20% target after only 2 years of postretrofit performance.
3
Monthly Savings and Cost Avoidance Breakdown This table outlines the monthly baseline and actual usage quantities for gas consumption, effective rate for this meter, and cost avoidance. This offers an accurate assessment of how much less/more was spent due to the retrofit. Baseline Month (Therms) Jan-14 900 Feb-14 762 Mar-14 714 Apr-14 416 May-14 202 Jun-14 118 Jul-14 120 Aug-14 120 Sep-14 146 Oct-14 278 Nov-14 555 Dec-14 673 Jan-15 899 Feb-15 926 Mar-15 723 Apr-15 373 May-15 161 Jun-15 148 Jul-15 120 Aug-15 120 Sep-15 118 Oct-15 280 Nov-15 371 Dec-15 456 Jan-16 771 Feb-16 668 Mar-16 499 Apr-16 387 May-16 254 Jun-16 122
Actual (Therms) 529 429 355 199 155 108 109 116 117 155 270 333 488 445 335 169 122 116 117 118 127 149 181 235 387 408 331 219 153 121
Savings (Therms) 371 334 359 218 47 9 11 5 29 122 284 340 410 481 388 204 39 32 3 2 (9) 131 190 222 383 260 168 169 101 1
Savings % 41% 44% 50% 52% 23% 8% 9% 4% 20% 44% 51% 51% 46% 52% 54% 55% 24% 21% 3% 2% -8% 47% 51% 49% 50% 39% 34% 44% 40% 0%
Effective Rate ($/Therms) $1.30 $1.28 $1.31 $1.45 $1.60 $1.69 $1.68 $1.65 $1.64 $1.59 $1.33 $1.29 $1.18 $1.09 $1.15 $1.36 $1.57 $1.53 $1.51 $1.50 $1.40 $1.45 $1.44 $1.49 $1.30 $1.16 $1.22 $1.22 $1.30 $1.39
Cost Avoidance $482.82 $427.90 $469.74 $315.25 $74.21 $15.97 $18.27 $7.76 $47.20 $194.12 $376.54 $438.40 $482.52 $522.79 $446.69 $277.29 $61.98 $48.29 $4.93 $3.53 -$12.60 $189.84 $273.91 $329.94 $499.61 $302.03 $204.08 $205.35 $131.59 $0.72
4
