Energy audit or collective assessment: which one, and when

The collective assessment says where the building stands. The audit says what to do, in what order, for what result. Confusing them means paying twice.

Many boards have voted an “energy diagnosis” without knowing which one, and find themselves a year later with a document that does not answer the question asked. The confusion is understandable: both talk about energy, both produce a label, both cost money. They do not serve the same moment.

The collective assessment: a snapshot

The collective energy performance assessment describes the building’s performance at a point in time and gives it a label. It is a photograph: it places the building, it does not say how to improve it.

The obligation extends progressively to residential buildings on a timetable tied to size. The question for the manager is therefore not “are we concerned” but “since when, and have we done it”. See the collective assessment.

The energy audit: a work plan

The audit goes considerably further. It analyses the fabric, the equipment and actual consumption, then proposes costed works scenarios with the expected gain and the label targeted afterwards. It is a decision-making document, not a statement of fact.

It is also, in practice, what renovation support schemes ask for: with no costed scenarios there is no energy gain to demonstrate, therefore no subsidy to compute. See renovation grants.

The difference that matters to the board

• The collective assessment answers “where are we?”.
• The audit answers “what do we do, in what order, for what result?”.
• The assessment is imposed. The audit is decided — it prepares.
• The assessment costs hundreds to a few thousand depending on the building; the audit more, because it produces engineering work.

Hence a simple rule: a building planning no works does what is asked of it. A building considering a renovation commissions the audit, and stops reasoning from the label alone.

And the global technical survey?

The global technical survey covers more than energy: apparent condition of common areas, equipment, upcoming obligations, and an estimate of works over ten years. It feeds the multi-year works plan directly.

Many buildings gain by commissioning the set in a coordinated way rather than in three separate orders three years apart. See survey or plan and the multi-year plan.

An energy label does not make a project. It makes a starting point, and sometimes one selling argument fewer.

Commissioning the study properly

An audit is compared like a works quote, on content rather than price: how many scenarios are delivered, whether real consumption is used and not only theoretical figures, whether a genuine site visit takes place, and whether results are presented in person to the board or the meeting.

That last point is the one systematically left out of the order — yet it decides whether the meeting votes the works or pushes the subject to next year.

What the board checks before voting

• The date and label of the existing collective assessment, if any.
• Actual consumption over three years, in energy and in money.
• The age of heating and ventilation equipment.
• Works already done, often forgotten for want of archives: see the maintenance log.
• The timetable of the grants envisaged, which drives the order of the steps.

The fourth point holds surprises: windows replaced eight years ago or a roof insulated during a façade job change the scenarios — provided somebody remembers.

Centralise your diagnoses with CoproHarmony

CoproHarmony keeps diagnoses, consumption readings, quotes and decisions in one place, with their dates: the next board will not have to ask for them again. Create your free space.