Can you sign off the energy-saving claim?
The warehouse lighting upgrade is ready for handover. The sponsor wants to announce a 20% energy saving.
The question
Alder Works and all measurements are fictional. Compare whole-warehouse electricity per operating hour. Meter boundaries and operating mix are comparable. The facilities lead accepts the service; the sponsor closes the project.
| Electricity (kWh) | Operating hours | |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 10000 | 1000 |
| First pilot | 8800 | 1100 |
The agreed benefit target is at least 20% lower kWh per operating hour than baseline.
- Facilities leadSafety checks, maintenance instructions and spare-parts records are accepted. I will own ongoing measurement.
“Choose your next action and explain the evidence behind it.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Which measure matches the goal?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use energy per hour
The strong move. Normalize the energy use for the stated operating hours.
Claim 12% because total energy fell from 10,000 to 8,800.
Tempting, but it misses something. The agreed target is energy per operating hour, not total energy.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Compare kWh per operating hour: baseline 10, pilot 8. That is a 20% reduction.”
Why it works: Normalize the energy use for the stated operating hours.
Step 2: What must survive handover?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Name the ongoing owner
The strong move. A completed installation still needs a way to verify its operating benefit.
Close the record after transferring the maintenance files.
Tempting, but it misses something. Maintenance readiness does not finish benefit measurement.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Record the facilities owner, the same measurement boundary and the next benefit check.”
Why it works: A completed installation still needs a way to verify its operating benefit.
Step 3: Does the next window meet the target?
Before the handover meeting, a second comparable window records 10,080 kWh over 1,200 operating hours. The facilities lead confirms the meter boundary and operating mix are unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use the new measurement
The strong move. Use the same baseline and metric after the update.
Continue to claim 20% based only on the first pilot.
Tempting, but it misses something. The later comparable measurement changes the current evidence.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The next window is 10,080 / 1,200 = 8.4 kWh per hour: a 16% saving, below target.”
Why it works: Use the same baseline and metric after the update.
Step 4: What can you sign off?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Separate service and benefit
The strong move. Operational acceptance and benefit confirmation are separate decisions.
Reject all service handover or announce the full benefit anyway.
Tempting, but it misses something. The service is ready, while the benefit has not sustained the target.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Accept the ready service with the facilities lead, but keep benefit closure open with a named tuning and remeasurement action.”
Why it works: Operational acceptance and benefit confirmation are separate decisions.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Hand over the service with an open, owned benefit action.
- Because
- The current window shows 16%, while safety and maintenance acceptance are complete.
- What would change it
- A verified repeat measurement at or above 20%, or an approved revised benefit target.
Common traps
- Do not mix absolute use with an intensity target.
- A first pilot is not proof that savings persist.
Check your answer
- I kept the meter boundary consistent.
- I normalized by operating hours.
- I used the later measurement.
- I separated service acceptance from benefit closure.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026