Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

The Green Energy Audit, a new procedure for the sustainable auditing of existing
buildings integrated with the LEED Protocols
Giuliano Dall’O’ a,∗ , Alessandro Speccher b , Elisa Bruni c
a
BEST (Building Environment Science and Technology) Department – Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi 3, 20133 Milano, Italy
b
GBC Italia (Green Building Council) – Piazza Manifattura, 1 – 38068 Rovereto (TN), Italy
c
SACERT – Corso di Porta Vittoria 27, 20122 Milano, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Energy audits of buildings are the most effective tool to promote energy retrofitting measures for existing
Energy audit buildings, which are major consumers of energy in cities. Energy audits have multiple goals, including
Energy efficiency reducing energy consumption, managing costs, and environmental impact. The methodology of Green
Green building
Energy Audit proposed defines an approach that is somewhat different from the traditional one. The
Environmental certification
added value lies in the word “green”, a word that refers to and summarises a common concept: sustain-
LEED
Green Energy Audit ability. The proposed method is not intended to be a new energy auditing procedure, but rather a new
and more modern interpretation of the classic methodology. The sustainability achieved by applying a
retrofit measure is assessed with reference to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Pro-
tocol. The Green Energy Audit integrates two strategic elements, energy and environment, by mixing the
energy audit and LEED methodologies. This synergy strengthens the role of the classic energy audit by
providing a method that not only optimise the energy performance of existing buildings but also achieve
a green retrofit of buildings, making buildings, and so future cities, more sustainable. A case study of the
application of this method is discussed in this paper.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Existing buildings are major consumers of energy in cities,
especially in developed countries. In order to reduce the energy
consumption of cities it is necessary to reduce the energy consump-
tion of these buildings. Working draft 3.1 “Energy Audit Standard
– Part 1 (General)” of the CEN (European Committee for Stan-
dardization) defines an energy audit as “a systematic procedure
to obtain adequate knowledge of the existing energy consumption
profile of a building or group of buildings, of an industrial opera-
tion and/or installation of a private or public service, identify and
quantify cost-effective energy savings opportunities and report the
findings”. The same document states that an energy audit is an
important activity within energy management. Its purpose is to
analyse present energy usage and thereby identify and quantify
cost-effective energy saving opportunities that the energy user can
subsequently implement. The intention of the standard is to bring
more clarity, transparency and certainty to the market for energy
auditing services.
European Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency
and energy services emphasises the role of the energy audit in arti-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 02 2399 4649; fax: +39 02 2399 4648.
E-mail address: giuldal@polimi.it (G. Dall’O’).
cle 12 by stating that “Member States shall ensure the availability
of efficient, high-quality energy audit schemes which are designed
to identify potential energy efficiency improvement measures and
which are carried out in an independent manner, to all final con-
sumers, including smaller domestic, commercial and small and
medium-sized industrial customers”. In the same article, however,
the Directive reduces the potential of the energy audit by stating
that (article 12, paragraph 3) Energy Certification shall be regarded
as equivalent to an energy audit. The subsequent transposition of
Directive 32 in Member States helped to spread a concept that was
technically wrong: that energy certification and an energy audit are
the same thing. The difference between energy certification and an
energy audit is evident.
The goals of the two are different. For energy certification, the
goal is mainly to classify, from the energy point of view, the build-
ing’s performance and to stimulate the real estate market to be
more sensible about energy consumption aspects, while the goal of
energy auditing is to obtain adequate knowledge of the existing
energy consumption profile and to identify and quantify cost-
effective energy saving opportunities. There are not only target
differences, the methodology for evaluating primary energy needs
differs substantially.
In this regard, it is useful to recall Standard EN 13790 – 2008.
In the evaluation criteria, this standard specifies that there is a dif-
ference between Design Rating and Asset Rating; usage data and

2210-6707/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.02.001
 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
weather data are standard for energy certifications and Tailored
Ratings, whereas for energy audits they are dependent on the scope
of the audit. In the energy audit process, it is essential to define the
correct strategy for improving the efficiency of the building.
Europe is obviously aware of the importance of energy auditing,
but it still lacks a comprehensive reference standard and laws; as
we have seen, the laws in place are not always clear. Often, national
laws make energy audits mandatory (for example when replac-
ing boilers or renovating buildings), but as there are no common
guidelines, the quality of the reports is not high.
The situation in the United States is quite different. The guide-
lines provided by ASHRAE (American Association of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) for energy audits
are an important and useful reference for professionals. Profes-
sional associations of engineers, such as CEM (Certified Energy
Managers) and BEAP (Building Energy Assessment Professionals),
play an important role in guaranteeing the quality of the energy
audits promoted by ASHRAE. The auditors operating in the United
States also employ energy benchmarking, which is very useful for
understanding the energy efficiency status of existing buildings and
their potential for improvement.
Beyond its technical and organisational aspects, energy audit-
ing as promoted and applied in the United States takes a different,
more pragmatic approach. Energy auditing is linked to the mar-
ket with obligations determined by law that make auditors more
accountable for the results of their work.
The Green Energy Audit methodological procedure discussed
in this paper makes many references to the US experience, but it
applies it to a different context: Europe, and in particular Italy.
In the US, there are many high-quality publications on energy
auditing and energy management. Their pragmatic approach and
operational content appeals to engineers in a simple and func-
tional way. The most popular handbook is the one presented by
Thumann and Younger (2008). The book describes, in a synthetic
way, the approach that an Energy Auditor should take. Regard-
ing retrofitting, the most comprehensive collection is the work of
Wulfinghoff (1999), which addresses about 1.500 retrofit actions
relevant to the industrial sector. The author considers not only
retrofits that save energy but also those that improve sustainabil-
ity. This paper references other interesting reports (Barney et al.,
2003; Milan, 2009; Kreith & Goswami, 2007). Among the European
schemes for the promotion of operational energy audits, we refer
to the work of CRES (Centre for Renewable Energy Sources).
If the idea of considering sustainability aspects within an energy
audit comes from the work of Wulfinghoff, the ability to integrate
LEED certification into a Green Energy Audit comes from the work of
ASHRAE (VV, 2006a), whose Green Guide often refers to the effects
of energy saving choices on LEED certification schemes. The guide,
however, does not provide a procedure for Green Energy Audits,
but proposes a number of good practices to be used for design,
construction and operation of sustainable buildings.
The integrated approach proposed in our methodology is not
discussed in the scientific and technical literature, and therefore
can be considered original.
2. General aspects and methodology of the Green Energy
Audit
2.1. General aspects of an energy audit
Reducing the resource consumption of an existing building is
often possible and convenient. However, initiating the process of
implementing the changes is not simple if the customer has little
expertise and little or no awareness of the energy status of their
building.
55
The problem is not only to evaluate strategies for improving
performance but also to define a correct path regarding how to
implement them in a rational way, considering not only the techni-
cal constraints but also the economic and legal aspects. The decision
to start any project stems from motivation; the stronger the moti-
vation, the easier it will be to realise.
The energy recovery process may be triggered by a number of
factors, some of which are the following:
- facilities that fail to provide acceptable environmental comfort;
- the consumption of energy and resources (e.g., water);
- the plant that must be replaced (because it is malfunctioning, it is
inadequate in terms of regulation or safety or because it no longer
complies with emission limits);
- major renovations of the building are planned;
- energy certification has demonstrated a lack of energy efficiency.
The Green Energy Audit maintains the basic features of the
energy audit, and, referring to the previously mentioned definition
in the CEN working draft, four basic steps are defined:
- knowledge of the energy consumption profile of the investigated
system;
- identification of possible measures to reduce consumption;
- evaluation of these measures on a cost/benefit basis;
- the process of reporting on the completed work.
Once these points are fixed, the energy audit can be articulated
in different forms that differ in their complexity.
2.2. Definition of operating levels
The approach for an energy audit must be effective and aimed at
achieving the objectives, but at the same time, it must consider eco-
nomical aspects. The commitment of resources must be assessed
on a case-by-case basis in a way that considers the ROI (Return Of
Investment) because the rule is that the investigation activities of
an audit must be paid for by the benefits it will generate. The expe-
rience gained from the 1970s (Barelli & Bidini, 2004; Recalcati &
Dall’O’, 1998) allows us to group energy audit approaches into three
categories that correspond to three different operational levels.
The first category describes energy audits, which can be realised
in the short term. They are cost-effective because the auditor is
a competent technician with considerable experience in the field.
The terms used to define these types of investigation reflect the
different dynamics of the procedures; a Walk-through-Audit gives
the idea of just “passing through” during a field visit, whereas
a One-Day Audit highlights that the time required is limited to
approximately one day, and finally, a Preliminary Audit sets out
that this approach is not final but is a first step towards subse-
quent energy audits at a higher operational level. The Walk-through
Audit is used to describe this first operational category. The second
category, the Standard Audit, defines a more challenging energy
audit than the previous category. The term is most often used to
mean that the audit standards are those of an energy audit and
that no additional reports at this operational level are specified.
The Standard Audit represents the best compromise between cost
and effectiveness, and as we shall see below, it defines a compre-
hensive technical approach that requires a greater commitment of
resources and more skills. For this reason the Standard Audit is
the most common type of energy audit. The operational level of
the Simulation Audit is more complex than that of the Standard
Audit, because Simulation Audit provides dynamic simulation of
a building-plant system in all its complexity. In this case, a virtual
model of the building is created, and based on this model, the effec-
tiveness of the strategies adopted are verified. Table 1 shows a more
56 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65

Table 1
Features, instruments and procedures for the three Green Energy Audit operational levels (walkthrough, standard, simulation).

Features, instruments and procedures Green Energy Audit

Walkthrough Standard Simulation

Building size Rough plan Plans, cross-sections and detailed Plans, cross-sections and detailed
exterior elevation views exterior elevation views
System features Recommended (rough) Recommended (detailed) Recommended (detailed)
Data on energy consumption Required Required Required
Measurements Size (rough) Size Size
Air temperature Air temperature, surface temperature, Air temperature, surface temperature,
Surface temperature air speed, air flow, illuminance, power air speed, air flow, illuminance, power
Illuminance grid analysis, flue gas analysis, infrared grid analysis, flue gas analysis, infrared
Electrical measurements audit (recommended) audit (recommended)
Monitoring systems (data loggers) None Recommended Recommended
Forms Basic checklist Detailed checklist Detailed checklist
Calculation tools Nomograms, simple spreadsheets Simplified calculation models, simple Dynamic simulation models (e.g.,
algorithms or simplified models Energy Plus)
Expected results Brief report pinpointing inefficiencies Detailed report including a description Detailed report including a description
in systems or management; rough list of the current situation (structure and of the current situation (structure and
of interventions; suggestions for systems), pinpointing inefficiencies in systems), pinpointing inefficiencies in
further in-depth surveys systems or management; definition systems or management; definition
and description of interventions; and description of interventions;
economic evaluation economic evaluation
Estimated average time Few days Few weeks Several weeks
Cost Low Medium High

detailed description of these three operating levels and highlights
their potential problems, and it provides a summary comparison
of the descriptions, information, tools, procedures and the results
obtained for the three Green Energy Audit operational levels pro-
posed in our methodology.
The diagram in Fig. 1 outlines a possible operational plan. Sub-
sequent phases are identified in the middle, actions are detailed on
the right and the different participants involved are on the left.
ASHRAE provides four operational levels: level 1 of Green Energy
Audit is very similar to the sum of level 0 and level 1 of ASHRAE,
while level 2 and level 3 are quite different. ASHRAE level 2 consists
in an energy use survey that provides a comprehensive analysis of
the studied installations, a more detailed analysis of the facility,
a breakdown of the energy use and a first quantitative evaluation
of the ECOs (Energy Conservation Opportunities) selected to cor-
rect the weaknesses and improve existing installations. This level
of analysis can involve advanced on-site measurements and sophis-
ticated computer based simulation tools to evaluate precisely the
selected energy retrofits. ASHRAE level 3 is a detailed Analysis of
Capital-Intensive Modifications focusing on potential costly ECOs
that require rigorous engineering study.
2.3. From energy auditing to Green Energy Auditing
The Green Energy Audit is not limited to providing tools and
methods to reduce energy consumption; rather, it is aimed at a far
more important goal: improving the overall sustainability of the
building.
At the methodological level, the word “green” implies a series
of choices:
- the definition of measures that lead to a reduction in the con-
sumption of resources; conservation of energy then becomes
conservation of resources;
- choice criteria for interventions can be addressed from the outset
with these indicators; the Auditor then must have two objec-
tives (or a mix of both): to maximise energy performance and
to maximise environmental quality;
- measures that use renewable energy are preferred (e.g., solar
thermal, solar photovoltaic and biomass);
- when defining measures, the Auditor should consider all natu-
ral solutions that can help control the climate and light in the
building, such as green roofs, green facades, natural shading sys-
tems, passive solar and daylighting systems;
- evaluation of sustainability targets according to the LEED Stan-
dard.
The aim of a Green Energy Audit is to identify measures that
can improve the energy performance and sustainability of build-
ings. The cost/effectiveness analysis allows the identification of
the scenario more advantageous, while the intersection with the
LEED credits suggests the most sustainable measures and in gen-
eral the solutions and technologies with environmental benefits.
For example, the assessment of measures aimed to improve ther-
mal insulation of the building should considered the benefits of
reduce demand of virgin materials and reduce waste: is possible
use salvaged, refurbished or reused materials or use materials with
recycled content. In the construction phase a construction waste
management plan should be developed and implemented with the
aim of recycle and salvage nonhazardous construction materials
and demolition debris. Numerous others environmental aspects
could be considered in the assessment of measures and theirs appli-
cation: restoring vegetation on the site after construction, reducing
the heat island effect using vegetation or materials with a high
reflectance, use alternative surfaces and techniques to increase on-
site infiltration and to reduce pollutants from stormwater runoff.
The main difference between energy audit and Green Energy Audit
approach lies in the way the retrofit strategies are defined. In a
conventional energy audit retrofit actions are normally defined on
the basis of cost/effectiveness parameters. Some measures consid-
ered in the Green Energy Audit are not cost-effective at all because
do not affect energy saving (for example measures that optimise
the air quality). Green Energy Audit is aimed to improve the overall
sustainability of the building, so it is necessary to consider environ-
mental aspects that compensate the reduction of cost effectiveness.
For this reason, in our procedure is made a prior evaluation of the
LEED classification that can be potentially achieved.
2.4. Application of the Green Energy Audit methodology
The standardisation of auditing activities can follow general
principles (e.g., standard defined by VV, 2006a), but it also requires
its own specific definition based on a series of elements:
 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
Fig. 1. Operational plan to design and implement an energy enhancement project.
- the operational level (Walkthrough, standard or simulation);
- the type of building or installation (e.g., residential, commercial,
commercial, industrial);
- the size and complexity of the building or plant;
- the category of the technical building and the engineering audited
(e.g., electrical, mechanical equipment, lighting, housing);
- the client organisation (e.g., single point of contact, staff manage-
ment, maintenance staff).
The combination of the elements listed above greatly influences
the strategy to be adopted, its complexity, its execution time, the
commitment of resources and consequently the definition of the
Activity Plan through which the audit is conducted.
Fig. 2 illustrates a process flow for a Green Energy Audit. In the
central part, the steps are arranged sequentially to the right and
left of the depth that the Energy Auditor must compare the sub-
jects. For simplicity, the flow is arranged in a sequential manner. In
fact, comparisons with the parties involved, in particular with the
customer, can generate recursive paths.
The methodological approach outlined in Fig. 2 is a good basis
for implementing a Quality System Audit. As a means of defining
the process, which is structured in stages, the following points are
considered:
- the purpose and scope of the process: what must be done, the
affected areas and those excluded;
- liability, in which it is indicated that the organisation is responsi-
ble for implementing the contents of the document and achieving
the goal;
57
- actions and methods to meet the requirements of the quality
system that explain, step-by-step, what needs to be done;
- documentation and references are given, and the reference docu-
ments and forms associated with the use of such documents and
data must be recorded;
- records of which document must be kept and for how long are
specified and generated.
2.5. The tools for a Green Energy Audit
Among the tools of the Green Energy Audit procedure,
there is a checklist of 45 items (downloadable from the web-
site www.green-energy-audit.org) and approximately 120 forms
describing measures to increase the energy efficiency and sustain-
ability of buildings (Dall’O’, 2011). The forms are divided into five
areas:
- building envelope (roofs, basements, walls, windows, solar pro-
tection, daylighting, etc.);
- mechanical systems (heating, summer cooling, ventilation, hot
water, water services, etc.);
- electrical systems (the generation, distribution and use of energy;
lighting);
- renewable energy (solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, biomass,
etc.);
- management (improvements to management, maintenance,
energy accounting, etc.).
58 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
Fig. 2. Flux diagram of the Green Energy Audit process.
Each form is divided into three sections: a header, a descriptive
part and a scoring section.
The header includes the identification code, the title of the mea-
sure and the assessments (ratings) that show the feasibility of the
measure, whereas the descriptive part includes:
- a description that illustrates the extent of the measure from a
technical standpoint and that focuses on the motivations mak-
ing it especially convenient to implement in the context of the
overall system in addition to any interdependence (or alterna-
tives offered) from other measures that can be cited. This section
also refers to issues relating to the applications described thus far
and to the selection criteria;
- energy and environmental benefits, a section in which the energy
benefits that can be derived and the environmental implications
might be highlighted; and
- a tips and cautions section in which suggestions to increase the
effectiveness of the measure are summarised and potentially crit-
ical issues are highlighted.
3. Commissioning authorities and the Green Energy Audit
There are three reasons why it is essential to explore the
relationship between Commissioning and Green Energy Audit pro-
cesses (Speccher, 2011):
- energy efficiency is the driver of mandatory requirements for new
buildings and existing building stock (e.g., in Europe the Directive
2010/31/UE on the energy performance of buildings);
- Retrocommissioning process (that is the Cx process referred to
existing building and managed by a Cx Authority) is a system-
atic method for investigating how and why an existing building’s
systems are operated and maintained, and identifying ways to
improve overall building performance.
- sustainability applied to building construction has become the
new driver of innovation and economic recovery, and it is
necessary to define multi-dimensional systems to measure sus-
tainability.
Energy audit is the first stage of a Retrocommissioning process
(Commissioning process applied to Existing Building); energy audit
and RetroCx are mentioned within the LEED EBOM protocol; they
are complementary parts of the same picture that allow a building
be more energy efficient and environmentally friendly.
3.1. The conjunction of the two methodologies
Taking on both energy efficiency and sustainability has become
the winning combination for any country that aims to become an
active partner in the ultimate world challenge: climate change. The
connections that exist between the methodologies introduced by
the Commissioning/Retrocommissioning processes and the energy
audit process are many and articulated. The context in which these
practices are applied cannot be separated from a parallel discussion
that may lead to their synergy in what can be defined as a process
of virtuous cultural growth aimed at both energy efficiency and
(primarily) sustainability.
The key conjunction point between the two methodologies (the
Green Energy Audit and the Retrocommissioning process) can be
summarised as follows:
- both are practices that apply in the international framework
defined by the requirements on energy efficiency and environ-
mental sustainability applied to construction;
 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
- LEED certification requires the adoption of both a mandatory
Commissioning process for new buildings, a mandatory energy
audit process with an optional Retrocommissioning process for
existing buildings; energy audit is the stage 1 of a Retrocommis-
sioning process;
- both practices are aimed at improving the energy and environ-
mental performance of the building from the design process to
management and maintenance.
3.2. Commissioning and Retrocommissioning
Here are some definitions that will facilitate comprehension of
the next section (VV, 2006b):
- Commissioning (Cx): a systematic quality assurance process that
spans the entire design and construction process, helping to
ensure that the new building’s performance meets owner expec-
tations. Owner expectations are listed in the Owner Project
Requirement (OPR) document.
- Retrocommissioning: a systematic method for investigating how
and why an existing building’s systems are operated and main-
tained and for identifying ways to improve overall building
performance.
- Recommissioning: another type of Commissioning that is applied
when a building that has already been the subject of Commis-
sioning is subjected to another Commissioning process. Ideally, a
Recommissioning plan should be part of the original Commission-
ing plan that is drawn up during the construction of the building.
- Commissioning Authority (CxA): an individual hired to lead a
retro/Commissioning process; the Commissioning Authority is
responsible for managing the process to ensure that the owner
will obtain the required performance listed in the Owner Project
Requirement document.
3.3. Commissioning and Retrocommissioning: from new
buildings to existing buildings
The Commissioning process was established long before the
appearance of LEED certification, and the benefits that it brings to
a building’s construction process are so important that it has been
used since the first version of the protocol was introduced. It is part
of the Energy and Atmosphere category, and it is a prerequisite (i.e.,
it is a mandatory action).
ASHRAE Guidelines 0 and 1, which describe the Commissioning
process (Cx), refer to a continuum that starts with the definition of
the client’s requirements for the management and maintenance of
the building. Because LEED provides both a protocol dedicated to
the design and construction phase (New Construction, School, Core
and Shell, Commercial Interiors and others) and a specific protocol
for maintenance and management (Existing Building Operations
and Maintenance), the process of Commissioning is mentioned in
both; for new buildings, it is the Commissioning process; when
done to a building that has already been commissioned, it is Recom-
missioning, and when a Commissioning process is activated on a
building that was not commissioned during its construction, it is
Retrocommissioning (Fig. 3).
3.4. The Recommissioning process for existing buildings
The Recommissioning process is the natural continuation of the
Commissioning process in terms of the maintenance and manage-
ment goals set by the client. It starts from considerations emerging
from an energy audit, and then it develops a plan to achieve
the building performance objectives defined in the Owner Project
Requirement (OPR document).
59
At the end of a Commissioning process the client has a detailed
report on the design and construction phases; Green Energy Audits
are greatly facilitated when the auditors have access to these doc-
uments before and during the analysis. There is a good chance
of achieving tight synergy if the two processes are applied (with
different timing) in the same building.
The planned activities in the Retrocommissioning process are
structured in the following phases: the Planning Phase, the Investi-
gation Phase (Audit), the Implementation Phase, and the Hands-Off
Phase. Energy audit is fundamental in the Investigation Phase. Fur-
ther information is available about this subject (Speccher, 2011).
Energy audits and the energy Retrocommissioning process are
very similar and often have large areas of overlap (see Fig. 1). Retro-
commissioning analyses systems and building management so as
to make them as efficient as possible. Energy audits examine the
history of energy consumption and identify strategies to improve
energy performance. The main difference between the approaches
is the output produced; Commissioning generates a more efficient
building, while energy audits generate a report that contains a
series of recommendations to make the building more efficient
due to a series of strategies characterised by different returns on
investment.
4. From energy audits to LEED certification
4.1. LEED Protocol 2009
The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
environmental certification is a protocol developed and published
by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). This is the most popu-
lar protocol in the world (used in over 40 countries), and it is one of
the most reliable and widely applied. Furthermore, as Vaidehi et al.
(2011) underlines, LEED rating systems adopt an holistic evaluation
of overall impact of building on environment. These are the reasons
that led us to consider LEED as a reference environmental protocol
for the Green Energy Audit.
LEED provides different formulations depending on building
type and the phase of the building’s life cycle. In this paper, the 2009
version for New Construction and the 2009 version for Operations
and Maintenance are analysed in detail. LEED for New Construc-
tion can be used for new buildings and existing buildings subject
to major renovations (for interventions that involve significant
elements of air conditioning systems, significant interventions on
the construction and renovation of interior spaces; Green Building
Council Italia, 2009; USGBCL, 2009a, 2009b). LEED Operations and
Maintenance was designed to certify the sustainability of ongoing
operations of existing commercial and institutional buildings.
The rating system is organised into five environmental cate-
gories: Sustainable Site (SS), Water Management (WE), Energy and
Atmosphere (EA), Materials and Resources (MR) and Indoor Envi-
ronmental Quality (IEQ).
An additional category known as Innovation in Operations (IO)
for existing buildings or Innovation in Design (IP) for New Con-
struction and renovations addresses innovative practices aimed
at sustainability and issues not covered in the five previous cat-
egories. The category Regional Priority (PR) is used to highlight the
importance of local conditions in determining best practices.
In 2009, the protocol was updated through a re-weighting of
LEED credits. The available points have been re-distributed such
that the various credits more accurately reflect their potential to
mitigate negative environmental impacts of the building or to
promote positive impacts. The weighting of the credits is based
on scientific methods to guarantee their greater accuracy and
transparency. Quantitative methods were introduced to objectively
60 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
Fig. 3. Comparison between the Commissioning and Recommissioning processes.
assess the environmental impacts of a building during its entire life
cycle.
The 2009 LEED certification for the Operation and Maintenance
of existing buildings and the 2009 LEED certification for New
Construction and renovations classify buildings according to the
following rating scale: Base: 40–49 points; Silver: 50–59 points;
Gold: 60–79 points; and Platinum: 80 and above.
4.2. Green Energy Auditing and LEED
The prerequisites and credits related to measures affecting
Green Energy Audits are the environmental categories Energy and
Atmosphere, Water Management and Indoor Environmental Qual-
ity, accounting for 60%. This percentage increases if one considers
that the other categories (Materials and Resources, and Sustainable
Site) have internal credits that can contribute to measures to be
taken in a Green Energy Audit (for example, the choice of materials
or the construction of green roofs).
The correlation between the measures for energy and environ-
mental sustainability considered by the Green Energy Audit and
the acquisition of LEED credits is not direct because some measures
can contribute to more than one credit. The replacement of a win-
dow, for example, can contribute (if only partially) to the following
credits:
- optimisation of energy performance (EA credit 1);
- Certified Wood (MR credit 7); and
- natural light and vision (IEQ credit 8.1).
4.3. Design choices and LEED credits
In the LEED system, as in most systems for the environmental
certification of buildings, the designer is not bound by mandatory
choices but is offered some flexibility. It is necessary to meet the
mandatory criteria, but design choices can be tuned in different
ways to favour or exclude certain technologies; what is important
is that a certain total score is reached.
Any design choice, or in the case of the Green Energy Audit, any
intervention, is not uniquely linked to a criterion. Design choices
and criteria are therefore two elements between which there is a
correlation that is not biunivocal, as in the simplified diagram in
Fig. 4 where in the building’s systems as seen in the entirety of its
design choices are compared with the evaluation system (Bruni,
2011).
An intervention in terms of energy and the environment can
meet one or more criteria from different LEED categories as a func-
tion of the choices being made.
Although LEED certification is given based on an assessment
of the building as a whole, the performance of the structures that
make up the building and building management strategies can help
meet the objectives set by the credits and thus can contribute to the
acquisition of final certification for the building.
The aim of a Green Energy Audit is to evaluate the degree of
improvement in sustainability of the building as a whole that can
be obtained through the proposed choices; such choices do not
necessarily generate an advantage in terms of energy, but they
can generate many advantages with respect to sustainability. If the
standard of comparison is the LEED Protocol, then the problem is
in understanding how applying an intervention can help meet the
criteria.
With the aim of highlighting the contribution they can make to
satisfying credits, different structures and activities are analysed,
such as the following: opaque building envelope; fenestration;
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; Com-
missioning; and Water Management.
Credits identified as involving structures and activities are then
crossed with various interventions to highlight the relevance of the
intervention to LEED credits (Bruni, 2011).
Among building systems, the fenestration sub-system is a struc-
ture that offers great complexity from this point of view. In fact,
according to its technical characteristics and performance, the fen-
estration of a building can help to fulfil certain specific credits for
the categories Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources
and Indoor Environmental Quality. In turn, the credit Optimising
energy performance in the category Energy and Atmosphere is
 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65 61

Fig. 4. Correlations between the measures taken in a building and the credits of the adopted evaluation protocol.

relevant to window replacement intervention measures because, Table 2

Construction data of the residential building owned by the Municipality of Milan.
in the case of building renovation, replacing windows with better
performing ones can improve the energy performance of a building. General data
Fig. 5 illustrates LEED credits for New Construction related to fen- Building type Tall building
Building use Residential (social housing)
estration, and points are used to indicate the relevance of certain
Location Milan (Italy)
fenestration sub-system interventions to the LEED credits. Degree Days 2400 ◦ C/day
Another example concerns the Water Management of a building. Geometric data
Managing water by stimulating the flow of rainwater and reducing Gross volume (V) 7314 m3
the consumption of potable water may contribute to the building Envelope surface (S) 3323 m2
S/V ratio 0.45
various credits in the categories Sustainable Site, Water Manage-
Net surface of flats 1993 m2
ment and Energy and Atmosphere. In the Sustainable Site category Characteristics of the heating plant
is the credit “Stormwater Design: control of the quantity”. This Heating plant Centralized boilers
credit in turn is relevant to the intervention “Install rainwater col- Heating terminals Radiators
Specific heating capacity 91.3 W/m2 (referred to the net surface
lection system” as one of the strategies that can reduce the amount
of flats)
of stormwater flowing into water bodies. Thermal transmittance of the envelope elements (U value – W/m2 K)
Windows Wood frame type: Uframe = 2.1,
Uglass = 5.7
5. Application of the methodology to a case study Metal frame type: Uframe = 5.5,
Uglass = 5.7
External walls U = 0.61/1.15
The Green Energy Audit procedure has been tested on different Basements U = 0.72/1.65
types of buildings, both public (e.g., Schools) and private (offices, Roofs U = 0.90
residential). An interesting case study is the audit of a public
residential building of social housing owned by the Municipality
of Milan. Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the building
under study. In our energy evaluation we did not consider energy
uses for domestic hot water because the energy was generated
62 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
Fig. 5. Fenestration sub-system interventions with relevance to LEED credits.
by autonomous boilers, but we consider electricity for auxiliary
apparatus of heating systems (i.e., pumps, burners, control systems,
etc.).
According to the Green Energy Audit process, the main operation
phases are summarised below:
- evaluation of the energy performance of the building that evalu-
ates current situation (baseline);
- evaluation of the energy performance of the building that evalu-
ates the local legislative requirements for new buildings;
- definition of possible measures to improve energy performance
and sustainability of the building on the basis of two scenarios;
- comparison between retrofit actions and LEED for New Construc-
tion and major renovation credits;
- assessment of the acquisition of the LEED certification;
- evaluation of the performance improvements related to the dif-
ferent scenarios and economic analysis using Internal Rate of
Return (IRR) and Simple Pay Back (SPB) indicators.
Table 3 shows relevance of measures provided by the Green
Energy Audit versus LEED assessment criteria: the codes listed
below (FE01, EW01, etc.) refer to measures expressed in the forms
of Green Energy Audit procedures.
Table 4 shows the energy balance and the economic evaluation
for the different scenarios.
- baseline refers to the actual situation;
- scenario 1 consider envelope insulation (external thermal insu-
lation composite system), windows substitution and installation
of thermostatic valves on radiators;
- scenario 1 bis consider the intervention of scenario 1 plus process
energy (LEED procedure estimate energy process correspond-
ing to 25% of total consumption of primary energy of reference
building that in our case is the building according with the
regional standard for new buildings);
- scenario 2 consider the same measures of scenario 1 plus the sub-
stitution of the actual boilers with gas heat pumps and installation
of a PV plant;
- scenario 2 bis consider the intervention of scenario 1 plus process
energy.
Colum 1 of Table 4 shows the primary energy indicators (EP1 ) for
the different scenarios, while column 2 shows the reduction of the
different scenarios compared to the baseline. Column 3 shows the
primary energy indicator (EP2 ) in accordance with the local legisla-
tive requirements for new buildings (i.e., reference building) while
column 4 shows the reduction of the different scenarios compared
to the reference building (column 3).
Columns 5 and 6 show the economical indicators (respectively
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Simple Pay Back (SPB).
Considering only economical aspects, scenario 1 is the more
convenient one. Green Energy Audit methodology, moreover, con-
sidering also aspect relating the sustainability of the building.
Evaluation of the building with the LEED procedure allows to
reach a total score, excluding the Credit 1 of Energy and Atmo-
sphere, of 35 points.
Credit 1 of Energy and Atmosphere in scenario 1 obtained a
score of 0 (total building’s points: 28) and in scenario 2 a score
of 3 (total building’s points: 38). Using an energy simulation in
the dynamic regime 11 points could be obtained in Credit 1 of
Energy and Atmosphere with the same reduction in the energy per-
formance of 29.8% (total building’s points: 46). Only considering
the energy cost/effectiveness scenario 1 is preferable, while con-
sidering sustainability through Green Energy Audit methodology
scenario 2 is preferable.
Table 3
Relevance of measures provided by the Green Energy Audit versus LEED assessment criteria.

Relevance measures – credits Measures

Category Credits LEED NC 2009 Points FE01 EW01 BA02 PR02 HG01 RS04 RE02
Windows External wall Externally Existing warm Heat generator Install solar Installation of
replacement insulation insulation of flat roof upgrade replacement photovoltaic local control

G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65

basement walls with insulation systems

EA Prerequisite 2: minimum – v v v v v v v
energy performance
EA Credit 1: optimise energy 1–19 v v v v v v v
performance
EA Credit 2: on-site renewable 1–7 v
energy
MR Credit 1.1: building reuse, 1–3 v v v
maintain of existing walls,
floors and roof
MR Credit 1.2: building reuse, 1–2 v v v
maintain of interior
non-structural elements
MR Credit 2: construction 1–2 v v v
waste management
MR Credit 3: materials reuse 1–2 v v v
MR Credit 4: recycled content 1–2 v v v v
MR Credit 5: regional materials 1–2 v v v v
MR Credit 7: Certified Wood 1 v v v v
IEQ Credit 4.1: low-emitting 1 v
materials, adhesives and
sealants
IEQ Credit 6.2: controllability of 1 v
systems, thermal comfort
IEQ Credit 8.1: daylight and 1 v
views, daylight 75% of
spaces

63
64 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
Table 4
Energy and economic balance from the performance evaluation related to the different scenarios.
Scenario 1 2
EP1 EP1 reduction
(kWh/m2 year) compared to
the baseline (%)
Baseline 198 – –
Scenario 1 54 73
Scenario 1 bis 69 65
Scenario 2 37 81
Scenario 2 bis 52 74
Table 5
Some questions that the auditor may ask the client and, depending on the possible responses, some interpretations.
Possible questions
Is reducing the cost of management the only goal of the audit?
Is the heightened value of the building as a result of the retrofit
work a factor to consider?
If the client is already planning redevelopment of the opaque
building envelope, is it for technological reasons or to
improve the image?
Is the client’s goal to support domestic economic resources, or
is the use of external financing possible?
Does the client prepare the company’s environmental
sustainability report?
6. Results and discussion
The Green Energy Audit is realised with an operational plan, the
Green Energy Plan. The Green Energy Plan defines the strategies and
the actions that result in measures for the limitation of resource use.
Whereas the on-site audit phase with further processing allows the
auditor to define what is technically possible to achieve, the Green
Energy Plan explicitly states what must be done. The difference
between the two is not only tied to cost effectiveness in the strict
sense, but it may also be tied to other aspects that clearly must
be discussed with the client. This is what differentiates the Green
Energy Audit from a traditional energy audit, not just for the dictate
to include only measures that pay for themselves. In defining and
then proposing to the client resource containment measures, the
auditor should consider that the objective of the Green Energy Audit
is to improve the sustainability of the building. In Table 5, there are
some questions that the auditor may ask the client and, depending
on the possible responses, some interpretations. This consultation
with the client should be at a meeting preceding the drafting of
the Green Energy Plan. With the objectives clarified, the next step
concerns the definition of measures.
The energy audit is an important tool for analysing buildings and
equipment from the energy point of view because it highlights the
inefficiencies and proposes measures to overcome them. Once the
building has improved its performance, due to the implementation
of interventions, it is important to initiate a business policy that
has as its goal the maintenance or possible improvement of such
services.
All the measures identified, if implemented, may become
important elements of a management policy aimed at continu-
ously improving energy sustainability. One tool that can help in
3 4 5 6
EP2 EP2 reduction (%) Internal Rate of Simple Pay
(kWh/m2 year) Return (%) Back (years)
legislative
requirements
– – –
59 8.8 7.13 16
74 6.75 – –
59 37 6.60 17
74 29.8 – –
Interpretations of responses
If so few opportunities remain to suggest other motives, we must understand what financial
commitment the customer is ready to endure and over what period. A negative response provides
an opening to other possible reasons; it is for the auditor to define a broader framework.
A positive response can predict the time of return on investment, which may exceed the period of
use of the building, as all that is not recovered from the improved performance can be recovered
from the greater value of the building when it is sold.
The measures applied to improve opaque building envelope performance are those that require
larger investments and longer payback times.
An affirmative answer to this question gives the auditor the opportunity to offer these
interventions. The economic evaluation of the investment should reasonably take into account
only the value added related to improved energy performance.
The availability of external resources allows for more substantial investments, and therefore, for
the containment of resources to be amplified. On the other hand, the availability of internal
resources can reduce financing costs. The auditor must obtain this information to properly process
the economic evaluation.
Many companies prepare and publish an annual report on environmental sustainability that
highlights the efforts made to reduce the company’s impact on the environment. This choice,
which is not normally required, shows that the client pays attention to these aspects.
If this is the case, the auditor can be more confident in proposing to the client interventions that
improve the sustainability of the building or facility while not guaranteeing energy savings and an
income that can offset the expenses.
supporting this strategy is the standard ISO 50001:2011 “Energy
management systems—Requirements with guidance for use.” (ISO,
2011). This standard specifies the requirements for creating,
launching, maintaining and improving an energy management sys-
tem, and it allows the organisation to take a systematic approach
to continuously improving its energy efficiency. The standard
for energy management systems can be integrated with other
management systems to become an environmental management
system as described in the standard ISO 14001:2004 “Environmen-
tal management systems—Requirements with guidance for use”
(ISO, 2004). The Green Energy Audit is thus a fundamental tool that
allows building management to consider energy and environmen-
tal issues and to build a continuous improvement process.
7. Conclusion
International agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol, European
20,20,20) advise all countries to adopt measures to accelerate the
process of improving the energy efficiency of the residential sector,
which in the European Union accounts for more than 40% of all
energy consumption from fossil fuels.
At the same time, awareness has emerged on an international
scale of how important it is for there to be a renewal process for
existing buildings that is not limited to energy efficiency but also
aims to improve sustainability.
This consideration is confirmed by the spread of sustainable
certification protocols, and LEED represents the most successful of
these.
For better results and to avoid possible duplication, it is useful to
adopt an integrated approach that considers improving the sustain-
ability of a building as a single objective. The procedure described
 G. Dall’O’ et al. / Sustainable Cities and Society 3 (2012) 54–65
in this paper, the Green Energy Audit, adopts this approach by
integrating two strategic elements, energy and the environment,
in a common path. In particular, the paper highlights the synergy
between Energy Audits and LEED. This synergy shows that this is
an appropriate and effective way of comprehensively addressing
the real issues emerging in the residential building sector.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Green Building Council of
Italy for their support of the development of this new approach to
energy audits.
References
AA. VV. (2006a). ASHRAE GreenGuide, the design, construction, and operation of sus-
tainable buildings. Burlington, USA: BH Elsevier.
AA. VV. (2006b). California commissioning guides for new and existing building. Cali-
fornia Commissioning Collaborative.
Barelli, L., & Bidini, G. (2004). Development of an energetic diagnosis method for the
buildings: Example of the Perugia. University Energy and Buildings.
Capehart, B. L., Turner, W. C., & Kennedy, W. J. (2003). Guide to energy management
(4th ed.). Lilburn: The Fairmont Press.
Bruni, E. (2011). Green energy audit e LEED. In G. Dall’O’ (Ed.), Green Energy Audit,
Manuale operativo per la diagnosi energetica ed ambientale degli edifici (pp.
261–282). Italy: Edizioni Ambiente.
Centre For Renewable Energy Sources. (2000). Energy audit guide. Athens: Centre for
Renewable Energy Sources (CRES).
65
Milan, C. B. (2009). A guidebook for performing walk-through energy audits of industrial
facilities. Portland: Energy Efficiency Department.
Dall’O’, G. (2011). Green energy audit, Manuale operativo per la diagnosi energetica ed
ambientale degli edifici. Italy: Edizioni Ambiente.
Green Building Council Italia (2009). Manuale LEED Italia Nuove costruzioni e ristrut-
turazioni, Italia.
ISO 14001:2004. Environmental management systems—Requirements with guidance
for use.
ISO 50001:2011. Energy management systems—Requirements with guidance for use.
Kreith, F., & Goswami, D. Y. (2007). Energy management and conservation handbook.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Recalcati, R., & Dall’O’, G. (1998). Procedure for buildings energetic certification. Bres-
cia: Punto Energia.
Speccher, A. (2011). Commissioning authority e Green Energy Audit. In G. Dall’O’
(Ed.), Green Energy Audit, Manuale operativo per la diagnosi energetica ed ambi-
entale degli edifici (pp. 47–56). Italy: Edizioni Ambiente.
(2006). The Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing
Council Directive 93/76/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union,
(2010). The Directive 2010/31/UE of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 may 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. Official Journal of the
European Union, 53.
Thumann, A., & Younger, W. J. (2008). Handbook of energy audits (7th ed.). Lilburn:
The Fairmont Press.
U.S. Green Building Council (2009). LEED reference guide for green building design and
construction, USA.
U.S. Green Building Council (2009). LEED reference guide for green building operations
and maintenance, USA.
Dakwalea, V. A., Ralegaonkara, R. V., & Mandavganec, S. (2011). Improving environ-
mental performance of building through increased energy efficiency: A review.
Sustainable Cities and Society.
Wulfinghoff, D. R. (1999). Energy efficiency manual. Wheaton: Energy Institute Press.