The DIN standards committee NAGUS comments on the determination and presentation of the improvement of the energy-related performance according to ISO 50001:2018
Even if, of course, the adopted regulations in the energy management standard ISO 50001:2018 are unambiguous and binding worldwide, the DIN interpretation of the presentation of the improvement of energy-related performance according to ISO 50001:2018 has a special significance, especially for German organizations. In the experience of many of our customers, BAFA is very much guided by these definitions when approving electricity price privileges such as the EEG BesAR. So below is the second version of that opinion, available in the original here.
Answers of the working committee NA 172-00-09 AA “Energy efficiency and energy management” (in the DIN standards committee Fundamentals of environmental protection) to questions related to the improvement of energy-related performance according to DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12
Preliminary remarks
Improving energy-related performance is a central goal of ISO 50001:2018 energy management systems. The standard requires evidence of continuous improvement in energy-related performance. According to the standard, this can be achieved by means of energy performance indicators (EnPIs), in which the initial value (EnB) and the current EnPI value are determined at regular intervals for all EnPIs, normalized if necessary, compared and presented in summary form. The following are questions from business practice which have been put to the German Standards Committee with regard to the demonstration or presentation of improvement, and which have been answered by the Committee.
1. what makes a ratio an EnPI (methodology, influencing factors, normalization)?
All metrics that show actual energy-related performance are EnPIs. If the actual performance is not discernible, for example in the case of purely financial indicators, or because distorting, significant influencing variables (weather, capacity utilisation, etc.) are not taken into account, we are not dealing with an EnPI. Indicators that take into account the relevant variables and can thus be normalized are EnPIs also in the sense of ISO 50006. If there are no significant factors influencing energy consumption (and thus no normalization is required), absolute energy consumption can also function as an EnPI.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 3.4.4:
“Energy performance indicator (EnPI) Measure or unit of energy-related performance (3.4.3) as defined by the organisation (3.1.1).
Note 1 on the term:
Depending on the type of activities being measured, EnPIs can be expressed by a simple metric, ratio, or model.”
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.4:
“The organization must identify EnPIs that.
(a) are suitable for the measurement and monitoring of their energy-related performance;
(b) enable the organisation to demonstrate an improvement in energy performance. […]“
2. is a single EnPI sufficient?
Excluding the borderline case of a company with only one energy source and a significant energy use (SEU), several EnPIs are necessary for the operation of an energy management system (EnMS) and for the presentation of the improvement of the energy-related performance.
3. do you need at least one EnPI for each SEU?
Yes.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.3:
“The organization must: […]
(c) for each SEU
1) determine the relevant variables;
2) determine the current energy-related power;
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.4on the determination of energy-related performance:
“The organization must identify EnPIs that.
(a) are suitable for the measurement and monitoring of their energy-related performance;
(b) enable the organisation to demonstrate an improvement in energy performance. […]“
4. is an EnPI related to the whole organisation necessary and does it need to improve?
In addition to EnPIs for the SEUs, metrics are required for the organization as a whole, because the addressee of all ISO 50001:2018 requirements is “the organization”, which is required to achieve and record improvement in its system and performance. The organization-related key figures must provide a general trend development.
5. how are improvements outside the SEUs evaluated?
All improvements are included in the overall assessment of the organisation. Therefore, it is also essential to determine the energy-related performance of the organisation as a whole, in addition to the energy-related performance of the individual SEUs.
This allows improvements or deteriorations in the areas that are not SEUs to be identified and taken into account.
6. at what level should improvement be demonstrated for multi-site procedures?
The (multi-site) organisation as a whole must demonstrate its performance improvement. The contributions of the individual sites must be available.
It is not essential for each site to demonstrate an improvement in energy performance on its own.
7. does the methodology for measuring success need to be included in the action plans?
Yes.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.2.3:
“In planning to achieve goals and energy objectives, the organization must establish and maintain action plans that include:
−[…]
-how the results will be evaluated, including the process(es) used to verify the improvement in energy-related performance.”
8. what and how must/can be measured? Measurement accuracy?
ISO 50001:2018 does not provide detailed guidance on what needs to be measured. However, data must be available on the following aspects:
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.6:
“(a) the relevant variables relating to SEUs;
(b) energy consumption in relation to SEUs and the organisation;
(c) operational criteria relating to SEUs;
(d) static factors, if applicable;
(e) data specified in action plans.” It is also possible that the data is not based on measurement. Should the organisation decide to use measurement, the accuracy and repeatability of the measurement shall be ensured.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.6:
“The organization must define and implement an energy data collection plan that is appropriate for its size, complexity, resources, and measurement and monitoring equipment.”
9. is one free to define the SEUs?
The definition of the SEU should enable the organization to establish a focus-oriented energy management. The criteria for the systematic determination of SEUs are set by the organization itself.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 3.5.6:
“Significant energy use SEU Energy use (3.5.4) that accounts for a significant proportion of energy consumption (3.5.2) and/or offers significant potential for improvement in energy-related performance (3.4.6).
Note 1 to entry: Criteria for what is considered essential are determined by the organization (3.1.1).
“The organization is thus free to determine the SEU, but must establish the appropriate criteria. In making this determination, it must take into account its context. Since organizations or even technical savings opportunities change over time, the SEUs must be reviewed at regular intervals and adjusted if necessary.
10. how to deal with adjustments to the energy baseline (EnB)?
The baselines must be appropriate comparators. For this purpose, of course, these may, indeed must, be modified and adapted according to ISO 50001:2018 under certain circumstances. ISO 50001:2018 describes three cases where adaptation is mandatory.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.5:
“The EnB(s) must be modified if one or more of the following occurs:
(a) the EnPI(s) no longer reflect the energy-related performance of the organisation;
(b) there have been major changes in the static factors;
(c) in accordance with a predetermined procedure.”
11. how to deal with “falling/rising baselines” (see examples in Annex “A.10” of ISO 50001:2018)?
The baselines must represent appropriate comparators that allow the actual state to be compared with the expected state (based on the reference period).
See DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 3.4.7.
“energetic starting point[…]
Note 2 to entry: One or more energy baselines are used in the determination of the improvement of energy performance (3.4.6), as a reference before and after or with and without implementation of measures to improve energy performance.
“To ensure adequate comparability, effects of relevant variables can be accounted for by normalization in the EnBs. If a decrease in the output of an aggregate is to be expected over time, this can be taken into account when determining the normalized baseline depending on the point in time under consideration.
12. how to deal with non-achievement of objectives (e.g. if a measure does not achieve the desired effect or an SEU “gets out of hand”)?
The question arises whether the “non-target achievement” is the result of a non-functioning/ineffective EnMS or is due to other causes. In any case, such deviations must be identified and appropriate corrective measures (possibly also an improvement of the planning process) must be initiated or implemented.
In the event of a system failure (major non-conformity), corrective action must be taken before a certificate is issued.
13. how to deal with deteriorations in performance?
Continued deterioration in performance indicates non-compliance with a requirement per se and also indicates that the EnMS is not functioning effectively.
The non-fulfilment of a requirement (non-conformity) can – depending on the degree of severity – as a major non-conformity (old: main non-conformity) block a positive certificate decision until the problem is resolved, or as a minor non-conformity (old: secondary non-conformity) result in at least one corrective action, the effectiveness of which must be verified.
(14) How should the construction of combined heat and power plants be assessed in the evaluation of the improvement of energy-related performance?
The inclusion of a CHP plant may in some cases lead to increased energy use within the organisational boundaries, although the overall balance (primary energy consumption) is improved. The installation of a CHP plant may count as a new/changed static factor, with the consequence that a new baseline has to be established, resulting in a new, not worsened, but also not improved energy-related performance.
15. can EnBs for the different EnPIs be from different time periods? If so, how does one deal with the aggregation of savings relating to different reference periods in such a case?
To prove the improvement of the energy-related performance, a comparison between the reference situation (represented by the EnB) and the actual situation (represented by the current EnPI values) has to be carried out. In order to demonstrate the improvement in energy-related performance, it is crucial that a view is taken across the whole organisation. In addition, the developments of the SEUs and individual projects are considered. In this context, the evaluation of the development can take place through an overall view without concrete aggregation across all projects, SEUs and others.
Should an organisation wish to aggregate individual developments, different reference periods must be taken into account in this approach.
16. what is the relationship between the improvement in energy performance and the energy targets?
The improvement in energy-related performance shows the change compared to the situation in the reference period. The degree of target achievement is determined by comparing the current EnPI values with the target values.
It is conceivable that there is an improvement in energy-related performance compared to the baseline, even though the target was not achieved. In this case, the organisation must determine how to deal with the “non-achievement” of the objectives and which corrective measures are to be implemented.
In addition, it is conceivable that targets will be exceeded. Here, too, it would be necessary to analyse how the overachievement came about in order to generate a learning effect (e.g. for the target-setting process).
(17) What is the difference between improving energy performance and improving energy efficiency?
ISO 50001:2018 defines energy efficiency as a component of energy-related performance.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 3.4.6:
“Improvement in energy-related performance Improvement in measurable energy efficiency (3.5.3) or energy consumption (3.5.2) outcomes, relative to energy use (3.5.4), compared to the energy baseline (3.4.7).”
In principle, a reduction in absolute energy consumption can also be an improvement in energy-related performance. However, it is also conceivable that there is an increase in energy consumption despite energy efficiency improvements. In such a case, the improvement in energy performance shall be demonstrated on the basis of the energy efficiency improvement. In practice, because of the required normalisation, an improvement in energy-related performance is usually also an improvement in energy efficiency, because the output of an energy-consuming process is regularly the most significant relevant variable (with which normalisation then also takes place).
18. can there be an improvement even if total energy consumption has increased?
Yes, as long as it can be shown that efficiency has improved. A comparison of the expected energy consumption based on the EnB and the actual energy consumption allows a presentation of the improvement of the energy-related performance.
19. is a certain level of improvement in energy performance required?
Above legal requirements, the organization itself determines what requirements it wants to meet and what level/goals it wants to set for itself. The standard does not give a concrete specification of the level of improvement (see scope ISO 50001:2018).
20. questions on a case study to demonstrate improvement in energy-related performance:
Scenario: All EnBs and EnPIs have been normalized taking into account the relevant variables.
EnPI value (2017) = 6.3 kWh/x (Will be set as EnB)
norm. EnB (2019) = 6.3 kWh/xEnPI value (2019) = 6.1 kWh/x
(a) Is this comparison sufficient to demonstrate the improvement in energy performance?
Yes, positive EnPI development represents an improvement in energy-related performance within the boundaries of facilities/sites, systems, processes, facilities, or organizations to which the EnPIs relate.
Notice:
The use of ratio indicators (quotients), as in the example above, is in principle possible according to ISO 50001:2018. However, they often have weaknesses with respect to normalization, as regularly only one variable and no base load is considered. Therefore, as required by the standard, data on possible influencing variables must be checked for their relevance and, if necessary, taken into account when determining the EnPIs (6.4) and normalization (6.5).
A frequently useful variant is to use energy consumption functions to calculate reference values (normalized EnB) based on the results of regression analyses (statistical models) or engineering models. This is also because it enables savings to be aggregated across processes and time periods.
(b) Does the improvement of 0,2 kWh/x have to be in line with savings from measures in the action plan?
An exact match between the expected efficiency improvement and the actual development of the EnPI value is not required. In the event of major discrepancies, it is necessary to examine what these are based on. Corrective action shall be taken where necessary.
c) Must/should/should only savings from measures implemented or “taken effect” in 2019 be taken into account? How to deal with savings from 2018 measures deposited in the action plan?
Since a comparison is made to the energy baseline, all measures that have been effectively implemented since the reference period (in this case, 2017) are included within the comparison.
d) What would the evidence be if in subsequent years (2020, 2021, …) the EnPI value remained at 6.1 kWh/x? Would the comparison to EnB still be an improvement?
It is not necessarily necessary for each year to be an improvement on the previous year. At the latest in the next recertification audit, an improvement compared to the previous recertification audit must be demonstrable (i.e. at least every 3 years). Only the comparison with a base period already longer ago would not be sufficient.
The annual monitoring audits serve to verify the maintenance and further development of the system and the energy-related performance. In the case of multi-annual projects, the monitoring audits would have to determine whether the improvements are “on track” (action plan).
21. is it possible to speak of an improvement in energy-related performance in accordance with the standard if, with the same energy efficiency and the same energy consumption, the energy sources used are shifted in favour of renewable energy sources? Z. E.g. from coal to wood or oil to self-generated electricity?
The use of renewable energy is generally welcome and can be addressed, for example, within the energy policy or by setting appropriate targets within the EnMS. However, the use of renewable energy does not constitute an improvement in energy-related performance in the sense of ISO 50001:2018, as the latter aims to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 3.4.6:
“Improvement in energy-related performanceImprovement in measurable energy efficiency (3.5.3) or energy consumption (3.5.2) outcomes, relative to energy use (3.5.4), compared to the energy baseline (3.4.7).”
See also A.6.3 “The installation of a renewable energy type within the scope and boundaries of the EnMS, as determined by the organization, does not constitute an improvement in energy-related performance.”
22. how would a complete shift to renewable energy sources be assessed if the associated changes in the process increased energy consumption?
According to the objective and definitions of ISO 50001:2018, a shift to renewable energy sources would not be an improvement in energy-related performance.
However, this “structural change” in operational energy supply (static factor) could justify the redefinition of a baseline, so that increased energy consumption (due to reallocation) would not be considered a deterioration.
23. can energy-related performance – based on EnPI values and their improvement – alternatively be presented in CO2 quantity instead of kWh?
No, as a change in the amount of CO2 does not necessarily reflect the evolution of energy efficiency or energy consumption, it cannot serve as an appropriate unit to demonstrate improvement in energy-related performance for the purposes of ISO 50001:2018. However, an indication of the improvement in the CO2 balance associated with measures is to be welcomed as additional information, e.g. for prioritizing measures.
24. how does one deal with the valuation of a company, part of a company or location, which is charged according to a so-called flat rate per square metre of rented space?
If the site in question falls within the scope of the EnMS, the energy consumption must be recorded (explored, measured, extrapolated, etc.) as part of the energy assessment.
Based on the criteria established by the organization to delineate SEUs, it would be necessary to determine whether this identified consumption is considered material to the organization. If – as assumed in the example case – these are not to be classified as SEUs, they do not have to be assessed as a priority.
25. how should a fleet of partly privately used vehicles be treated?
According to ISO 50001 it has to be decided whether the mentioned energy use is within the scope of the EnMS. If the operation of the vehicle fleet is (mandatory) part of the organisation’s activities and thus falls with them within the scope of the EnMS or the scope of the certificate, it must be included in the energy assessment.
The consumption of the organization is to be considered more closely, the private consumption of the employees can be delimited. If the fleet is defined as an SEU, a more detailed analysis must be carried out and an EnPI must also be defined.
Notice:
According to EDL-G (energy audit according to DIN EN 16247-1), energy consumption of privately used company cars and leased vehicles can be excluded from the calculation of the total energy consumption within the scope of an energy audit.
Contact GALLEHR+PARTNER®
The experts at GALLEHR+PARTNER® are available at all times to answer any questions you may have on the establishment and operation of certified energy management systems, integrated management systems and multi-site management systems.
Secure your non-binding appointment to get to know us now
The following information fits this report:
The DIN standards committee NAGUS comments on the determination and presentation of the improvement of energy-related performance according to ISO 50001:2018
Even though the adopted regulations in the energy management standard ISO 50001:2018 are of course clear and binding worldwide, the DIN interpretation of the presentation of the improvement of energy-related performance according to ISO 50001:2018 is of particular importance for German organizations. After all, the BAFA is very much based on the experience of many of our customers in approving electricity price privileges, such as the EEG BesAR, which very much follows these definitions. In the following you will therefore find the second version of this statement, which is available here in the original.
Answers of the working committee NA 172-00-09 AA “Energy efficiency and energy management” (in the DIN standards committee Fundamentals of environmental protection) to questions in connection with the improvement of the energy-related performance according to DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12
preliminary remarks
The improvement of energy-related performance is a central objective of energy management systems according to ISO 50001:2018, which requires proof of continuous improvement of energy-related performance. According to the standard, this can be provided by means of energy performance indicators (EnPIs), in which the initial value (EnB, en: energy baseline) and the current EnPI value are determined, normalized if necessary, compared and summarized for all EnPIs at regular intervals. The following are questions from company practice which were submitted to the German standards committee and answered by it with regard to the proof or presentation of the improvement.
1. What makes a key figure an EnPI (methodology, influencing factors, normalization) ?
All indicators that show the actual energy-related performance are EnPIs. If the actual performance is not recognizable, e.g. in the case of purely financial indicators or because distorting, significant influencing factors (weather, capacity utilization, etc.) are not taken into account, we are not dealing with an EnPI. Indicators that take the relevant variables into account and can thus be normalized are EnPIs also in the sense of ISO 50006. If there are no significant factors influencing energy consumption (and thus no normalization is required), absolute energy consumption can also function as an EnPI.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 3.4.4:
“Energy performance indicator (EnPI) Measure or unit of energy-related performance (3.4.3), as defined by the organization (3.1.1).
Note 1 on the term:
Depending on the type of activities being measured, EnPIs can be expressed by a simple metric, ratio or model”.
Cf. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.4:
.
“The organization must determine EnPIs that
(a) are suitable for measuring and monitoring their energy-related performance
(b) enable the organisation to demonstrate an improvement in energy-related performance. […]“
2. is a single EnPI?
sufficient
Excluding the borderline case of a company with only one energy source and a significant energy use (SEU, en: significant energy use), several EnPIs are necessary for the operation of an energy management system (EnMS) and for the presentation of the improvement of energy-related performance.
3
Yes.
Comp. DIN EN ISO 50001:2018-12, 6.3:
.
“The organization must: […]
c) for each SEU
1) determine the relevant variables;