NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-7A40-77664

September 2020

Brilliant Execution of Smart Labs: 

Employing Best Practices to Improve 

Safety and Reduce Energy for 

Sustainable Labs

Preprint

Rachel Romero, Otto Van Geet, and Amanda Kirkeby 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Presented at the 2020 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 

Buildings

August 17-21, 2020
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-7A40-77664

September 2020

Brilliant Execution of Smart Labs: 

Employing Best Practices to Improve 

Safety and Reduce Energy for 

Sustainable Labs

Preprint

Rachel Romero, Otto Van Geet, and Amanda Kirkeby 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Suggested Citation

Romero, Rachel, Otto Van Geet, and Amanda Kirkeby. 2020. Brilliant Execution of Smart 

Labs: Employing Best Practices to Improve Safety and Reduce Energy for Sustainable 

Labs: Preprint. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/CP-7A40-

77664. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/77664.pdf. 
NOTICE

This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable 

Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding 

provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy 

Management Program Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or 

the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, 

acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish 

or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available 

free via www.OSTI.gov. 

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (clockwise, left to right) NREL 51934, NREL 45897, NREL 42160, NREL 45891, NREL 48097, 

NREL 46526.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content. 
1 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Brilliant Execution of Smart Labs: Employing Best Practices to Improve 

Safety and Reduce Energy for Sustainable Labs

Rachel Romero, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Otto Van Geet, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Amanda Kirkeby, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

ABSTRACT

Laboratory buildings often dominate the energy use on research campuses, consuming 

three to four times the energy of a typical office building. In most cases, these facilities are

defined as “mission critical,” with excessive energy use that cannot be avoided without 

compromising safety. However, case studies indicate cost savings opportunities of up to 40% in 

laboratories (compared to standard practices) by employing energy efficient design strategies 

that also improve the safety of lab spaces (Better Buildings 2018). 

To help stakeholders implement improvement measures, the Smart Labs Toolkit 

describes a proven approach to optimizing performance of laboratories and critical control 

environments in new or existing facilities. The Toolkit outlines distinct phases for building a 

successful Smart Labs program that include: Plan, Assess, Optimize, and Manage. Each phase 

has specific tasks, training videos, and resources to educate users, support the efforts of key 

stakeholders, and maximize benefits for the organization in implementing high-performance 

labs. The Toolkit also includes case studies from the 17 Better Buildings Smart Labs Accelerator

partners, sharing lessons learned and supporting the Smart Labs approach to safe, efficient world 

class science. 

This paper reviews the technology choices for implementing Smart Labs ventilation 

strategies, controls, and other efficiency measures. Better Building Smart Lab Accelerator 

partners provide case study examples of safety and energy-savings results of using Smart Labs 

approaches.

Introduction

Laboratory research is vital to the advancement of scientific discovery. This often makes 

cutting-edge science the sole driver for the reputation, growth, and profitability of research 

institutions across the globe. As a result, organizations spend tremendous capital building 

laboratories to attract skilled researchers with safe, high-performing workspaces that support 

leading scientific research, inspire innovation, and bolster success of the organization. 

Researchers depend on proper design and operation of the building systems to provide 

safe, controlled lab spaces that support their scientific endeavors. The complex, challenging 

nature of laboratory facility operation often leads to disjunction between occupant safety, 

research needs, and building system capacities. Many laboratory buildings suffer significant, 

persistent operational issues that hinder success of lab activities, increase waste, and negatively 

impact the health of the organization (Smith 2004; Matthew et al. 2007; Kaplowitz et al. 2012). 

As a result, a typical laboratory is 3 to 4 times more energy intensive than a typical commercial 

office building (Better Buildings 2018). Based on the Labs21 database of 614 lab facilities, the 

average site energy use intensity for a single lab is 319 kBtu/ft2

-yr (Shehabi et al. 2017), 4 times

greater than that of a typical office building, 78.7 kBtu/ft2-yr (McDonald and Shankar 2016). 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

When left unresolved, excessive energy use causes undue financial burden on institutions, 

inhibiting the ability to fund research and improve facilities. Improper system design and 

operation can degrade facility performance, compromise integrity of research, deter top talent, 

and cause irrevocable harm to people, property, or the environment. 

Despite the magnitude and widespread nature of poor system performance in laboratories, 

resources for resolving these performance and safety issues are difficult to come by. Furthermore, 

the complexity of research facility operation on an organizational level makes knowing where to 

begin improvements a daunting task for stakeholders. 

This paper presents the approach of implementing a Smart Labs program that optimizes 

performance of laboratories and critical control environments in new or existing facilities

through systems-based management coupled with advanced monitoring and control technologies. 

When implemented successfully, a Smart Labs program often achieve significant benefits, 

including: 

• Safe, healthy workspaces that prioritize the safety of researchers and staff

• Reduced energy consumption and lower operating costs 

• Reduced building systems degradation, deferred maintenance, and property loss 

• Increased returns on investment with risk reduction for the organization 

• Attraction and retention of top-talent researchers with high-performance lab spaces. 

Specifically, this paper highlights Smart Labs best practices for optimization of airflow, 

implementation of dynamic building systems, and incorporation of additional efficiency in

laboratories. These best practices are included in a public online platform called the Smart Labs 

Toolkit (I2SL 2020a), providing a cohesive collection of resources to guide laboratory 

stakeholders through the straightforward, holistic Smart Labs approach to achieving dynamic, 

high-performance laboratories.

Definition of Smart Labs

Smart Labs are defined as laboratories that enable safe and efficient world-class science 

to occur through high-performance methods. The Smart Labs program employs a combination of 

physical, administrative, and management techniques to assess, optimize, manage, and maintain 

high-performance laboratories. Highlighted best practices include: 

• Minimizing risk by reducing the quantity of hazards and using less-hazardous substitutes 

• Containing hazards primarily within exposure control devices, such as fume hoods 

• Optimizing airflow patterns for high ventilation effectiveness 

• Preventing hazard re-entrainment with model-informed exhaust and intake system design 

• Implementing demand-based, dynamic building systems through precision controls, 

sensors, software, and ongoing commissioning 

• Minimizing fan energy through low pressure drop design and fan optimization

• Using high-efficacy lighting systems and controls to achieve low lighting power density. 

The History of Smart Labs 

In the late 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) established the Labs for the 21st Century initiative (Labs21) to improve the safety 
3 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and performance of laboratory buildings. The program developed an early toolkit of resources 

containing best practices, education, and training to advocate a whole-building approach to 

enhancing energy efficiency and environmental performance in labs. Today, the program 

continues under the leadership of the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (I2

SL). 

In 2008, University of California Irvine (UCI) engineers discovered their lab facilities

accounted for 65% of total campus energy consumption, despite exceeding California energy 

code and composing only 20% of the campus building area (Van Geet et al. 2018). Building off 

the work of Labs21, UCI began the Smart Labs Initiative to question current best practices in 

laboratory design and reduce their energy use baseline for the campus. Through the Smart Labs 

Initiative, the UCI campus reduced energy use by an average of 60% in 10 lab buildings, with a 

payback period of 6–8 years (UCI 2018). With such tremendous success, UCI became the 

flagship for Smart Labs initiatives at other institutions. 

In 2017, DOE created the Better Buildings Smart Labs Accelerator (BBSLA), a 3-year 

DOE-funded program that provided support to 17 partners committed to reducing energy use in 

labs by at least 20% over the next 10 years and implementing no- to low-cost measures for shortterm energy savings of 5% by 2020. Over the period of BBSLA, partners achieved 103,000 

MBtu in total energy savings, exceeding goals with an average 11% improvement across their 

building portfolios (Better Buildings 2020). 

Smart Labs Best Practices

Minimize the Risk 

The first step to achieving smart, safe, and efficient laboratories is to minimize risk in the 

lab space. Choosing less-hazardous chemical substitutes when possible reduces the opportunity 

for exposure, resulting in safer lab environments, reduced building system loads, and minimized

environmental impact of research waste. 

To effectively minimize risk, the Smart Labs approach includes educating research staff 

on alternative chemicals and procedures through training programs and publicly available 

resources. For example, the publicly available MilliporeSigma’s DOZN Tool

(www.sigmaaldrich.com/chemistry/greener-alternatives/matrix-scoring.html) assists researchers 

in identifying the impact of certain chemicals based on the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry 

aimed at improving human health and the lab environment through the reduction of exposure to 

hazardous materials. 

Contain the Hazard with Exposure Control Devices 

In some cutting-edge research practices, the use of hazardous chemicals and procedures 

is unavoidable. To prioritize safety in Smart Labs, exposure control devices (ECD) should be 

correctly implemented to contain hazards at the source and prevent exposure to occupants 

present in the laboratory environment. The most common ECD is a fume hood, defined as “a 

safety device specifically designed to carry undesirable effluence away from laboratory 

personnel and out of the building, when connected to a properly designed laboratory system,” 

according to the Scientific Equipment and Furniture Association (ASHRAE 2015). Additional 

ECDs include snorkels, glove boxes, and chemical or biological safety cabinets. 

Proper selection, sizing, and placement of ECDs are critical to ensuring the safety of the 

occupants and reducing energy use. Incorrect ECD installation can lead to inadequate face 
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

velocity, rendering the ECD ineffective in controlling occupant exposure to hazards. In this case, 

the ECD both fails in its primary function of protecting the immediate and long-term health of 

occupants and unnecessarily increases energy use through inefficient operation. 

Selection of the appropriate ECD depends on the laboratory activities and chemicals 

involved. A thorough ventilation risk assessment and survey of activities and associated hazards, 

including method, rate, and quantity of generation, should be conducted in determining the 

proper ECD (I2

SL 2020h). For example, fume hoods contain general odorous, toxic, and 

otherwise harmful substances used in a wide range of laboratory procedures, whereas biological 

safety cabinets specifically prevent organisms and infectious agents from contaminating other 

projects, personnel, and the environment. Sizing and placement subsequently rely on the 

ventilation risk assessment and a survey of the existing ventilation system to ensure necessary 

ECDs with adequate face velocity for proper operation are provided for expected lab activities. 

Operating specifications of ECDs must strike a delicate balance of effective operation 

and energy consumption that prioritizes safety of the users. To effectively reduce energy use 

without compromising safety, flow rate across the ECD face area can be optimized to the lowest 

level that provides adequate containment. In the case of fume hoods, installing a sash stop at a 

height of 15" limits the face area, allowing the hood to be balanced at 1⁄2 the flow rate required 

for the face area with fully open sash (typically 30"). Pairing with a variable air volume (VAV) 

exhaust system maximizes energy savings by further reducing the flow rate in times of disuse. 

Automatic sash closing systems that use occupancy sensors can be installed; however, the 

best sash closing system is an educated, proactive user. The Colorado School of Mines, a 

BBSLA partner, achieved cost savings of approximately $12,000 through a “Shut the Sash” 

initiative in the largest lab building on campus, Coolbaugh Hall. The campus-wide program is 

projected to save up to $30,000 per year (I2SL 2020b). 

Optimize Airflow Patterns

Air is the primary carrier of contaminants, heat, and moisture in a laboratory building, 

making the laboratory ventilation system the first line of defense against occupant exposure to 

research-related airborne hazards. Vital to a safe research environment, laboratory HVAC 

systems are also often the most resource-intensive building systems in critical research facilities, 

typically accounting for between 30% and 50% of initial construction costs (ASHRAE 2015). 

Based on data from 760 U.S. laboratory buildings, ventilation is the largest consumer of energy, 

accounting for up to 47% of total energy use (I2SL 2020g). Because of their complexity, 

laboratory HVAC systems require the greatest level of effort for operation and maintenance. In 

this regard, these systems often offer significant opportunities for reducing operational costs. 

A key Smart Labs strategy for laboratory ventilation systems is optimizing the airflow 

patterns that determine the concentration of contaminants and indoor air quality in labs. These in 

turn lead to efficient, effective HVAC system operation, directly affecting the safety of 

occupants and cost savings. 

In general, 100% outside supply air should sweep across the lab space and exit through 

exhaust grills or exposure control devices, effectively clearing contaminants from occupied 

workspaces without significant recirculation and stagnation, as illustrated in Figure 1. 
5 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Fig. 1. Diagram of proper lab ventilation system. Clean supply air 

enters the lab via a diffuser at one side of the lab space, sweeping 

across the lab and capturing contaminants that are effectively removed

through both general exhaust and exposure control devices, such as the 

fume hood displayed. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) 2020. 

Simple in theory, ventilation effectiveness depends on several interrelated factors that 

influence air velocities, temperature, and airflow patterns, including: 

• Supply airflow rate or air changes per hour 

• Location, type, and generation rate of contaminants 

• Location, number, and type of air supply diffusers, exhaust grilles, and returns 

• Location and strength of various heat sources in cooling-dominated labs

• Location and size of fume hoods in fume hood-dominated labs 

• Arrangement of furniture and other airflow obstructions. 

The complexity of lab ventilation makes it difficult to visualize the effects of different

HVAC system components on airflow patterns. The interactive HVACResource Map for 

Laboratories (NREL 2020) describes best practices for supply-air, exposure control device, and 

exhaust-air design, including creating a three-dimensional model of airflow through a lab space 

using computational fluid dynamics to visualize specific impacts of different strategies. This 

allows Smart Labs program stakeholders to visualize how each strategy fits into the laboratory 

ventilation system and make informed decisions in implementing improvements. 

Exhaust system design. Laboratory exhaust systems are responsible for effectively removing 

hazardous fumes from the interior lab environment, preventing re-entrainment of discharged 

exhaust in building supply air, and mitigating pollution of surrounding areas. Exhaust system 

standards often recommend higher discharge velocities than required to satisfy these 

responsibilities at the cost of high energy consumption. Through dynamic optimization of 

exhaust stack discharge, energy costs can be reduced while achieving effective contaminant 

discharge without re-entrainment or pollution of surroundings. Dispersion modeling using a wind 
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

tunnel or computational fluid dynamics is used to determine stack location, height, and discharge 

velocity to safely discharge fumes under different wind speeds and direction. As illustrated in 

Figure 2, wind-tunnel modeling allows laboratories to find the optimal balance between energy 

use in exhaust discharge and impact on surrounding air quality, especially when complex 

surroundings are present. 

Fig. 2. Images from wind-tunnel modeling of laboratory (red building) exhaust 

stack discharge. Arrows indicate the supply intake of an adjacent building to 

highlight the potential impact of laboratory exhaust. Source: CPP, Inc.

Recommended exhaust design employs either an active or passive VAV system, with 

exhaust flow matching supply flow at any given time. In passive VAV systems, exhaust flow is 

based on ventilation demand and the minimum air quality setpoint—the minimum flow/exit 

velocity/stack height needed to provide acceptable air quality at all locations as determined by 

the dispersion modeling assessment. 

Active VAV exhaust system is a strategy that utilizes real-time monitoring of wind 

conditions with an anemometer to control stack discharge velocity, increasing or decreasing fan 

speed as needed to effectively disperse exhaust discharge contaminants. The results are then

programed into exhaust system controls and used to inform fan speed adjustments based on the 

measured real-time wind conditions. 

Incorporating energy recovery to use exhaust streams to preheat or precool incoming 

supply air is another best practice in reducing HVAC system energy costs. Laboratories require 

100% outside air for ventilation with no recirculation to keep air quality at safe, acceptable levels

and reduce potential for re-entrainment of hazardous airborne contaminants. While necessary, 

this requirement makes conditioning lab supply air energy intensive, especially in hot and cold 

climates. While multiple strategies exist, additional fan energy to overcome pressure drops 

through the energy recovery devices must be balanced with energy savings in all cases. 

Dynamic Building Systems 

Smart Labs are dynamic spaces that require dynamic building systems. Especially 

important in ventilation systems, catering directly to the needs of the occupants at all times and 

adjusting system operation as needed both enhances the quality and safety of the lab environment 

and results in cost savings. 

One example is the use of occupancy sensors to adjust airflow based on occupancy. 

Airflow rate can usually be safely reduced during unoccupied times. 
7 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Another example is demand-controlled ventilation (DCV) using pollutant sensors to 

provide real-time VAV control. Ventilation air is provided at a minimum level according to 

ASHRAE Standard 62.1. Upon detection of a pollutant, such as carbon dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, or total volatile organic compounds, the ventilation rate is increased until pollutant 

concentration is reduced below a defined level. 

While DCV requires ongoing coordination with site operations staff, the benefits of DCV 

extend beyond enhancing safety. DCV reduces ventilation rates to the minimum setpoint when 

designated pollutants are below the defined threshold. In labs in which ventilation rates cannot 

be reduced due to fume hood airflow needs, DCV can be implemented for pollutant detection 

and alarms. DCV systems also provide air quality and energy use reports, which can be used to 

report savings and identify malfunctioning equipment or poor lab practices that could otherwise 

go undetected. 

Data analytics. Data analytics allow for continuous optimization of system operation to 

maximize return on investment of improvement measures. Detailed analytics ensure building 

systems are operating as designed, meeting new setpoints, air change rates, lighting levels, and 

occupied modes. Furthermore, managers can analyze long-term trends in building operation to 

identify further areas of improvement.

Analytics also provide a basis for verifying expected energy savings and justifying future 

improvement measures. NREL’s Intelligent Campus platform exemplifies the integration of 

energy informatics into a facility’s infrastructure, including the following use cases (I2SL 

2020d): 

• Utility dashboard for energy management

• Energy reporting tools and facility dashboards 

• Building operations and control 

• Building systems fault detection & diagnosis 

• Central plant operations 

• Electrical distribution system operations

• Net zero energy measurement and verification 

• Accurate tenant billing. 

Ongoing commissioning. As system improvements are implemented, utilizing analytics and the 

facility’s information layer for ongoing commissioning (OCx) has been identified as a Smart 

Labs best practice to maintain dynamic controls for high-performance labs, maximize savings 

and return on investment, and enable further Smart Lab optimization. The OCx approach 

involves using building analytics software to collect, store, and analyze data for energy and water 

consumption in laboratories. In a case study by BBSLA partner Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL), the team employed the OCx approach using SkySpark software that led to 

$410,000-plus in annual utility cost savings, with 5.7 million kWh of energy reduction and 18.9 

million gallons of water reduction annually (I2SL 2020c). Additionally, LBNL uses the DOE 

ISO 50001 Ready program to support their OCx process by ensuring that energy management 

activities are strategic, effective, and result in continual energy and water savings across LBNL’s 

campus. 

Additional benefits of ongoing commissioning include providing tools for continuous 

monitoring of the lab environment and equipment that support active management of fume 

hoods, workspace supply and exhaust systems, and entire-building ventilation systems. For 
8 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

example, involving the commissioning team in new construction allows for smooth transitions to 

effective operations. 

Additional Efficiency in Laboratories 

High-efficacy lighting. LED lighting is becoming the standard in most modern buildings, and 

LED lighting retrofits often result in better-quality lighting and lower energy use. The Smart 

Labs approach to lighting optimization goes beyond LED retrofits and occupancy controls to 

incorporate LED lighting in research-specific applications, including microscopy.

Plug loads. Plug loads are another energy-intensive area in laboratories targeted by approaches 

proposed in the Smart Labs Toolkit. Some lab equipment, such as autoclaves and ultra-low 

temperature freezers, run continuously in resource-intensive modes, even when not in use. In one 

case study, BBSLA partner U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) achieved 367,400 kWh/yr of combined savings during an UltraLow Temperature Freezer Initiative in 2017 (I2

SL 2020e). To achieve this amount of savings, the 

CDC’s six labs consolidated resources by removing 8,798 samples from cold storage units, 

enabling them to retire 21 unnecessary ultra-low temperature freezers (I2SL). Retiring those 

freezers resulted in an annual replacement cost avoidance of $31,500 per year (I2

SL). Combining 

the annual energy, maintenance, and replacement cost savings equal a total of $67,457 per year 

(I2

SL). 

Equipment sharing. Equipment sharing platforms provide additional opportunities for 

enhancing sustainability efforts through the Smart Labs Program. In a recent case study on the 

BioCore Equipment Sharing program at the University of Colorado Boulder, the BioCore 

program saved over 2,000 square feet of lab space by removing underutilized instruments and 

furniture. Furthermore, the program resulted in significant financial savings by facilitating 

coordination between research groups, saving an estimated $856,000 in equipment costs and 

$39,000 in researcher hours paid (I2SL 2020f). All reported savings were achieved within the 

first 18 months of program implementation as a result of internal support and buy-in by 

researcher staff.

Smart Labs Toolkit 

Compiling best practices learned through the BBSLA, Labs21 efforts, laboratory hygiene 

professionals, and industry partners, the Smart Labs Toolkit (smartlabs.i2sl.org) guides 

institutions in developing a Smart Labs program to implement the dynamic, ongoing, fourphased Smart Labs process: Plan, Assess, Optimize, and Manage. The Smart Labs Toolkit is not 

a step-by-step recipe book for institutions to achieve facility optimization; rather, it creates a 

framework for a process with which a research institution can organize efforts to effectively 

continue optimizing laboratory facilities, as illustrated in Figure 3. Resources in each phase of 

the Toolkit include videos, worksheets, templates, and case studies from BBSLA partners on best 

practices learned in the successful development of a Smart Labs program.
9 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Fig. 3. A summary of the Smart Labs approach with a description of tasks 

accomplished in each phase. Source: NREL 2020.

Plan

Creating a Smart Labs program takes coordination, innovation, and a strong team effort, 

making planning essential to success. This section provides resources for how to start planning 

your Smart Labs program. Once a Smart Labs program is established, continue to revisit these 

planning resources as the program grows and matures and begin to expand efforts to the entire 

campus. In the Plan phase, organizations: 

• Build a Smart Labs team of important lab stakeholders, including a Smart Labs 

coordinator, site operations personnel, and Environmental Health and Safety staff

• Prioritize laboratories based on benchmarking metrics 

• Develop a Smart Labs Roadmap that outlines a plan of program actions and goals for 

prioritized laboratories. 

Assess

Once the team has direction for the Smart Labs program, the next step is to thoroughly 

assess one building. Comparing these baseline performance metrics to design specifications and 

safety requirements informs the Smart Labs team of appropriate measures and opportunities to 

optimize laboratory system performance. The goal of the Assess phase is to identify areas in 

which the lab facility can be improved. The general steps in assessing all laboratory building 

systems include: 

• Gathering available data, including floor plans, system schematics, and equipment 

inventory 

• Performing system audits and surveys to establish operation baselines 

• Identifying and developing a scope of work for improvement measures. 

While the Toolkit presents methods for assessing all building systems, the focus of the 

Assess phase is the Laboratory Ventilation Risk AssessmentTM, a comprehensive process 

involving in-depth surveys of hazards and ventilation equipment to determine associated risk 

levels in each lab space. These risk levels, known as risk control bands, directly inform the air 

change rates necessary to maintain safe conditions. 
10 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Optimize

The Optimize phase involves appropriating funds and executing the scope of work 

proposed in the Assess phase. Laboratory buildings vary in age, size, function, and type of 

systems. Depending on the state of the systems, safety objectives, energy goals, and available 

funds, optimization projects can range from implementation of simple, low-cost measures to fullscale renovation of buildings involving highly complex and costly measures. This part of the 

toolkit includes guidance on: 

• Identifying sources for project funding 

• Implementing improvement measures, from system renovations to simple upgrades 

• Developing a building management plan. 

Manage 

High-performance buildings are challenging to maintain, especially in laboratories, where 

changes in leadership, research staff, or best practices for safety and research procedures are 

frequent. The Smart Labs Toolkit includes advice on managing dynamic operation of laboratory 

facilities, a key principle of Smart Labs. Dynamic laboratory management includes: 

• Ongoing benchmarking and analytics 

• Establishing a system for effectively managing change 

• Conducting lab safety surveys and staff training on a regular basis 

• Developing a Smart Labs management plan with a campus-wide ventilation plan and 

specific building management plans for each building. 

Working with Scientists

In addition to the four phases, the Toolkit includes best practices for communicating with 

researchers within an institution to encourage successful adoption of Smart Lab practices. In 

implementing a Smart Labs program, a vital step towards success is knowing the occupants and 

the research performed in lab spaces. Furthermore, safety is of the researchers’ utmost priority in 

any Smart Labs program. Best practices for ensuring safety include engaging all personnel in the 

organization and educating researchers on alternative chemicals or procedures that both enhance 

safety protocols and minimize resource consumption. 

Conclusion

The Smart Labs Toolkit provides a framework for research institutions to build successful 

Smart Labs Programs with dynamic, ongoing optimization of laboratory facilities. It outlines best 

practices that include minimizing the risk in labs, containing the existing hazards, optimizing the 

airflow patterns, implementing dynamic building systems, and more. It includes the lessons 

learned by BBSLA partners. These strategies provide a starting point for research institutions to

question, improve, and “buck the status quo” of existing industry standards and achieve safe, 

dynamic, high-performance Smart Labs that provide optimal grounds for cutting-edge scientific 

discovery—without the environmental impact. 
11 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

BBSLA is funded by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). This work would not have been possible without 

the leadership of Rachel Shepherd, Smart Labs program leader at FEMP. Additionally, the 

authors thank all the creative, hard-working partners of the BBSLA that are paving the way for 

the laboratory industry. 

This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by 

Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. 

DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program. The views expressed 

in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The 

U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, 

acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide 

license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. 

Government purposes. 

References

ASHRAE. 2015. ASHRAE Laboratory Design Guide: Planning and Operation of Laboratory 

HVAC Systems, 2nd Ed. Atlanta: ASHRAE. 

Bell, G. C. 2008. “Optimizing Laboratory Ventilation Rates.” Laboratories for the 21st Century 

Best Practice Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. 

Department of Energy. www.i2sl.org/documents/toolkit/bp_opt_vent_508.pdf. 

——— . 2010. “Laboratory Centralized Demand Controlled Ventilation System Increases Energy 

Efficiency in Pilot Study.” Laboratories for the 21st Century Technical Bulletin. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

www.i2sl.org/documents/toolkit/bulletin_demandvent_508.pdf. 

Better Buildings. 2018. “Better Buildings Smart Labs Accelerator Fact Sheet.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/Better%20

Buildings%20Smart%20Labs%20Accelerator%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

——— . 2020. “Working in Partnership for a Resilient and Innovative Energy Future: Progress 

Report 2020.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/DOE_BBI_2020_Pro

gress_Report.pdf. 

International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories. 2020a. “Smart Labs Toolkit.” Accessed June 

19, 2020. smartlabs.i2sl.org. 

——— . 2020b. “Case Study: Colorado School of Mines Shut the Sash Initiative.” Accessed June 

19, 2020. smartlabs.i2sl.org/cs-csm.html. 
12 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.

——— . 2020c. “Case Study: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Ongoing Commissioning.” 

Accessed June 19, 2020. smartlabs.i2sl.org/cs-lbnl-ocx.html. 

——— . 2020d. “Case Study: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Data Analytics and 

Benchmarking.” Accessed June 19, 2020. smartlabs.i2sl.org/cs-nrel-data-analysis.html. 

——— . 2020e. “Case Study: Ultra-Low Temperature Freezer Optimization Yields Large Energy 

Savings for Center of Disease Control and Prevention.” Accessed June 19, 2020. 

smartlabs.i2sl.org/cs-cdc-freezer.html. 

——— . 2020f. “Case Study: University of Colorado Boulder BioCore Equipment Sharing 

Program.” Accessed June 19, 2020. smartlabs.i2sl.org/cs-cu-boulder.html. 

——— . 2020g. “Laboratory Benchmarking Tool.” Accessed June 19, 2020. 

lbt.i2sl.org/buildings/charts. 

——— . 2020h. LVRA User Guide: Instructions on how to perform and utilize the Laboratory 

Ventilation Risk Assessment, Version 3.0. smartlabs.i2sl.org/pdfs/lvra-user-guide.pdf. 

Kaplowitz, M., L.G. Thorp, K. Coleman, and F. K. Yeboah. 2012. “Energy conservation 

attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors in science laboratories.” Energy Policy 50: 581–591. 

Matthew, P. A., D. A. Sartor, G.C. Bell, and D. Drummond. 2007. “Major energy efficiency 

opportunities in laboratories—implications for health and safety.” Journal of Chemical 

Health and Safety 14: 31–39. 

McDonald, C. and E. Shankar. 2016. Benchmarking Energy Data Analysis. Washington, DC: 

Department of Energy. 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/Building%20Data%20Analysis-09222016-

Final.pdf. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2020. “HVAC Resource Map.” Accessed June 19, 

2020. https://hvacresourcemap.net/index.html#/laboratories. 

Shehabi, A., M. Ganeshalingam, L. DeMates, P. Mathew, and D. Sartor. 2017. Characterizing 

the Laboratory Market. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL1007254. 

Smith, T. C. 2004. “The Unintended Practice of Using Employee Health as an Indicator of

Proper Hood Performance.” Journal of Chemical Health and Safety 11: 26–34. 

University of California, Irvine. 2018. “UC Irvine Smart Labs Initiative.” Accessed June 19, 

2020. www.ehs.uci.edu/programs/energy/. 

Van Geet, O., B. Polly, S. Pless, J. Heeter, and R. Shepherd. 2018. “Zero Energy University 

Campuses: A 2018 Progress Update on Reaching Campus Energy Goals: Preprint.” Golden, 

CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71822.pdf.