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.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Selecting a Control Strategy for 

Plug and Process Loads

Chad Lobato, Michael Sheppy, Larry Brackney, 

Shanti Pless, and Paul Torcellini

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5500-51708

September 2012
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.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Selecting a Control Strategy for 

Plug and Process Loads 

Chad Lobato, Michael Sheppy, Larry Brackney, 

Shanti Pless, and Paul Torcellini

Prepared under Task No. BEC71339

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5500-51708

September 2012
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Acknowledgments

This document was prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Program (BTP) as Deliverable FY11-

RD-01 under Task BEC7.1320 in the Commercial Buildings Statement of Work. The authors 

would like to thank the BTP Commercial Buildings Research and Development team for their 

dedicated support of the project.

We would like to thank all of the peer reviewers for their time and constructive feedback. NREL 

colleagues Anthony Florita and Andrew Parker reviewed the report during its development. 

Marjorie Schott provided assistance for creating figures. Stefanie Woodward of NREL 

proofread and edited the document. Jenni Sonnen of NREL and Jason Click of Media Fusion 

coordinated graphic design work by NREL’s Joelynn Schroeder.
iv

Executive Summary

Background

Plug and process loads (PPLs) are building electrical loads that are not related to lighting, 

heating, ventilation, cooling, and water heating, and typically do not provide comfort to the 

occupants. PPLs in commercial buildings account for almost 33% of U.S. commercial building 

electricity use (McKenney et al. 2010). At the building level, they account for approximately 

25% of the total electrical load in a minimally code-compliant commercial building, and can 

exceed 50% in an ultra-high efficiency building (Lobato et al. 2011). Minimizing PPLs is a

critical part of the design and operation of an energy-efficient building. 

A complex array of technologies that meter and control PPLs has emerged in the marketplace. 

NREL has developed guidance for evaluating and selecting a range of technologies. Control 

strategies that match PPL energy use to user work schedules can save considerable energy in 

most commercial buildings. PPL control strategies are also effective in reducing peak demand.

Results

We evaluated PPLs and related control strategies to ensure that the RSF would meet its energy 

goals. These results were distilled into a flowchart so others could achieve similar savings based 

on our experiences (see Section 2.2.2). The flowchart asks a series of questions about a PPL’s 

use and specifies a control strategy. It highlights situations where the PPL could be operated 

more efficiently, and points out key areas where manufacturers could make their equipment more

energy efficient.

Uncontrolled workstations in an office building formed a baseline to highlight the savings 

potential—the importance of encouraging “good” behavior and turning off PPLs when they are 

not being used. Ideally, all PPL control strategies would counteract “bad users,” but not all are 

“user proof.” Educational programs that encourage “good” user behavior should be implemented 

along with these strategies wherever possible. 

How To Use This Document To Choose a Cost-Effective Control Device

Figure ES–1 shows a step-by-step process for cost-effectively addressing and controlling PPLs.
v

Figure ES–1 Steps to effectively control PPLs 

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

5. Select a Cost-Effective Control Device

4. Evaluate the Cost Effectiveness of Controlling the PPL

Outcome:

Determine which loads can be controlled cost 

effectively.

Where to find in this paper:

Section 2.3, and Appendix A

3. Research Commercially Available Control Devices

Outcome:

Arrive at a list of control devices for the PPL.

Where to find :

Internet search or elsewhere

2. Evaluate the PPL With the Control Selection Flowchart

Outcome:

Arrive at a recommended control strategy for the 

PPL.

Where to find in this paper:

Section 2.2

1. Follow the 10 Steps for Addressing PPLs in Commercial Buildings

Outcome:

Designate a PPL champion who specifies a PPL 

strategy for your building.

Where to find in this paper:

Section 2.1
vi

Nomenclature

BMS building management system

CT current transducer

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EUI energy use intensity

ft2 square feet

Hz hertz

in inch

IS Information Services Office

kBtu 1000 British thermal units

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hours

LCD liquid crystal display

LED light emitting diode

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PPL plug and process load

PV photovoltaics

RSF Research Support Facility

UPS uninterruptible power supply

USB universal serial bus

V Volt

W Watt
vii

Contents

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... iv

Background.................................................................................................................................... iv

Results ......................................................................................................................................... iv

How To Use This Document To Choose a Cost-Effective Control Device .................................. iv

Nomenclature................................................................................................................................. vi

Contents........................................................................................................vii

Figures .........................................................................................................ix

Tables .........................................................................................................x

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Guide To Addressing and Controlling Plug and Process Loads...................................... 4

2.1 Addressing Plug and Process Loads................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 Establish a Plug and Process Load Champion.............................................................. 4

2.1.2 Benchmark Current Equipment and Operations........................................................... 4

2.1.3 Develop a Business Case for Addressing Plug and Process Loads.............................. 6

2.1.4 Identify Occupants’ True Needs................................................................................... 6

2.1.5 Meet Needs Efficiently................................................................................................. 7

2.1.6 Turn It All Off .............................................................................................................. 7

2.1.7 Institutionalize Plug and Process Load Measures ........................................................ 8

2.1.8 Address Unique Plug and Process Loads..................................................................... 8

2.1.9 Promote Occupant Awareness...................................................................................... 8

2.1.10 Address Plug and Process Loads (Design Team)......................................................... 8

2.2 Controlling Plug and Process Loads ................................................................................ 9

2.2.1 Available Control Strategies for Plug and Process Loads............................................ 9

2.2.2 Selecting a Control Strategy for Plug and Process Loads.......................................... 12

2.2.3 Controlling Typical Plug and Process Loads ............................................................. 22

2.3 Selecting a Cost-Effective Control Device .................................................................... 24

2.3.1 Other Evaluation Criteria for Control Devices........................................................... 25

3.0 Potential Equipment Improvements............................................................................... 27

3.1 Built-in Low-Power Functionality ................................................................................. 27

3.1.1 Remote Access ........................................................................................................... 27

3.1.2 Warm-up Time ........................................................................................................... 27

3.1.3 Effective Low-Power Functionality ........................................................................... 27

3.2 De-Energize and Reenergize Functionality.................................................................... 28

4.0 Research Support Facility Results: Plug and Process Load Controls Evaluation......... 29
viii

4.1 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Various Plug and Process Loads Control Strategies in 

the Research Support Facility ........................................................................................ 29

4.1.1 Baseline Measurements: No Control ......................................................................... 29

4.1.2 Built-In Automatic Low-Power State Control............................................................ 32

4.1.3 Scheduling Control Device ......................................................................................... 33

4.1.4 Load-Sensing Control Device .................................................................................... 35

4.1.5 Occupancy Control Device ......................................................................................... 37

4.1.6 Manual On, Vacancy Off Control Device .................................................................. 38

4.1.7 Manual Control ........................................................................................................... 38

5.0 Equipment and Strategies Implemented in the Research Support Facility .................... 40

5.1.1 Server Room ............................................................................................................... 40

5.1.2 Workstations ............................................................................................................... 41

5.1.3 Break Rooms and Kitchens ........................................................................................ 44

5.1.4 Elevators ..................................................................................................................... 44

5.1.5 Telecommunications Room Equipment ..................................................................... 45

5.1.6 Conference Room Equipment .................................................................................... 45

5.1.7 Small-Scale Food Service Areas ................................................................................ 45

5.1.8 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................. 46

6.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 48

7.0 References ...................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix A: Flowchart for Selecting a Control Strategy for Plug and Process Loads ................ 51

A.1 Flowchart Sheet A .......................................................................................................... 51

A.2 Flowchart Sheet B .......................................................................................................... 52

A.3 Flowchart Sheet C .......................................................................................................... 53

A.4 Flowchart Legend ........................................................................................................... 54

Appendix B: Minimum Power Draw to Justify Control ............................................................... 55

B.1 One-Year Payback Period .............................................................................................. 55

B.2 Three-Year Payback Period ........................................................................................... 56

B.3 Four-Year Payback Period ............................................................................................. 56

B.4 Five-Year Payback Period .............................................................................................. 57

B.5 Ten-Year Payback Period ............................................................................................... 57

Appendix C: Control Devices ....................................................................................................... 58
ix

Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure ES–1 Steps to effectively control PPLs........................................................................................... v

Figure 1-1 RSF annual energy use breakdown targets (kBtu/ft2

)............................................................ 2

Figure 2-1 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 1......................................... 13

Figure 2-2 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 2......................................... 14

Figure 2-3 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 3......................................... 14

Figure 2-4 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 4......................................... 15

Figure 2-5 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: low-power state implemented .......... 15

Figure 2-6 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 5......................................... 16

Figure 2-7 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 6......................................... 16

Figure 2-8 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 7......................................... 17

Figure 2-9 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 8......................................... 17

Figure 2-10 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: recommended control....................... 18

Figure 2-11 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 1................................... 18

Figure 2-12 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 2................................... 19

Figure 2-13 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 3................................... 19

Figure 2-14 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 4................................... 20

Figure 2-15 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 5................................... 20

Figure 2-16 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 6................................... 21

Figure 2-17 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 7................................... 21

Figure 2-18 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: recommended control................. 22

Figure 2-19 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device ......................... 25

Figure 4-1 Load profile of the “no control” workstation; all equipment powered up 24/7 ................... 30

Figure 4-2 Measured load profile of a workstation with good occupant behavior................................ 31

Figure 4-3 Measured load profile of a workstation without good occupant behavior........................... 31

Figure 4-4 Load profile of a workstation with idle time triggered control only and good occupant 

behavior............................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 4-5 Load profile of a workstation with digital timer control only and good user behavior........ 34

Figure 4-6 Load profile of the ice machine in the RSF’s coffee kiosk.................................................. 35

Figure 4-7 Load profile of a workstation with USB load-sensing control only and good user 

behavior............................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 4-8 Load profile of a workstation with plug load-sensing control only and good user 

behavior............................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4-9 Load profile of a task light with occupancy control only..................................................... 38

Figure 4-10 Load profile of a workstation with manual control only “good” behavior .......................... 39

Figure 5-1 Load profile of a laptop computer and two monitors with ideal control and user 

behavior............................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 5-2 Load profile of a computer and two monitors with various screensaver and power 

management settings. .......................................................................................................... 43
x

Figure A-1 PPL control selection process flowchart: Sheet A ................................................................... 51

Figure A-2 PPL control selection process flowchart: Sheet B.................................................................... 52

Figure A-3 PPL control selection process flowchart: Sheet C.................................................................... 53

Figure A-4 Flowchart Legend..................................................................................................................... 54

Figure B–1 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 1-year 

payback................................................................................................................................ 55

Figure B–2 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 3-year 

payback................................................................................................................................ 56

Figure B–3 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 4-year 

payback................................................................................................................................ 56

Figure B–4 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 5-year 

payback................................................................................................................................ 57

Figure B–5 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 10-year 

payback................................................................................................................................ 57

Tables

Table 2–1 Annual PPL EUIs in kBtu/ft2∙yr Based on Day and Night Power Densities.......................... 7

Table 2–2 Recommended Controls for Typical PPLs........................................................................... 23

Table 2–3 PPLs Control Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................... 26
1

1.0 Introduction

Plug and process loads (PPLs) in commercial buildings account for almost 5% of U.S. primary 

energy consumption (McKenney et al. 2010). They account for 25%–30% of the total electrical 

load in a minimally code-compliant commercial building, and can exceed 50% in an ultra-high 

efficiency building such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) new office 

building, the Research Support Facility (RSF) (Lobato et al. 2011). 

Total building energy use from PPLs is increasing. By 2030, commercial building energy 

consumption is expected to increase by 36%; PPL energy consumption is anticipated to increase

by 78% in the same time frame (DOE 2009). The disproportionate growth of PPL energy 

consumption compared to whole-building energy consumption is due to a combination of several 

trends: 

• Lighting, mechanical systems, and other end uses are becoming more efficient. 

• PPLs are becoming increasingly important for business activities.

• PPL installed equipment densities are increasing.

• PPL prices tend to decrease over time, which means they are available to more users 

(McKenney et al. 2010). 

These trends illustrate the importance of PPL energy reduction to reduce whole-building energy 

consumption.

Traditionally, the design community has not viewed PPLs as an integral building system, but as a 

necessary evil. Designers have simply worked around the issue. Reducing and controlling these 

loads is a primary challenge in the design and operation of an energy-efficient building. 

At the beginning of the RSF project, the goal was to use less than half the energy of a 

conventional office building. The owner and the design team required a 50% PPL reduction

(Lobato et al. 2011). The NREL RSF energy targets are shown in Figure 1-1.
2

Figure 1-1 RSF annual energy use breakdown targets (kBtu/ft2) 

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

Many methods were available to reduce PPL energy use in the RSF:

• Reduce the number of PPLs.

• Specify energy-efficient PPLs.

• Turn off PPLs when not in use:

o Through technology (e.g., PPL control power strips)

o Through behavior changes (e.g., user engagement and involvement).

This report addresses all these methods so you can select cost-effective PPL control devices.

An array of technologies that meter and control PPLs has emerged in the marketplace. NREL 

has developed guidance for evaluating and selecting PPL control technologies, and is using this

report to evaluate the range of technologies that turn off PPLs when not in use. 

Many uncontrolled PPLs have significant parasitic loads, which are generally defined as power 

draw in an “off” state. We define a parasitic load more broadly as the power draw of a PPL, in 

any state, that is not performing useful work. All parasitic loads waste energy and should be 

transitioned to the lowest power state possible.

PPLs are driven primarily by user behavior. Occupants in office buildings are typically seated at 

their desks for less than one third of the average workday (U.S. General Services Administration 

2006). And more than two thirds of the year consists of nonbusiness hours when users are not in 

the workplace, which means that some office PPLs are used only about 10% of the year. Control 

strategies that match PPL energy use to user work schedules will save considerable energy. 

PPLs span a wide range of equipment types, provide multiple functions and services, and are 

variously operated. The same PPL type may have completely different use patterns in different

locations, so control strategies must be individually tailored. Currently, no single commercially 

available control device can control all PPLs properly. Manufacturers market their control 

PPLs
3

devices as the solution to PPL energy use, but do not specify where they apply. Building owners 

and occupants may believe these devices control all loads effectively, but they are uninformed 

about which strategy should be used for which PPL. Some PPLs can be effectively controlled 

with inexpensive scheduling devices such as electrical outlet timers; others require much more 

complicated solutions.

An in-depth analysis of the equipment and process is needed to arrive at the correct control 

strategy for a given PPL. The required PPLs can then be specified and the corresponding control 

strategy determined and implemented. This report discusses lessons learned and describes the 

process you should follow to achieve cost-effective PPL energy savings.
4

2.0 Guide To Addressing and Controlling Plug and Process Loads

The following subsections describe the complete process for achieving PPL energy savings. It

can be applied to new construction, retrofits, and day-to-day operations.

2.1 Addressing Plug and Process Loads

To achieve the maximum PPL energy savings in your building, you must undertake an 

aggressive PPL benchmarking, specification, and procurement process. This will reveal your 

current PPLs and their uses, help you outfit your building with energy-efficient equipment, and 

ensure its efficient operation.

2.1.1 Establish a Plug and Process Load Champion

A PPL champion (or a team of champions) will initiate and help with these strategies. This 

person needs to understand basic energy efficiency opportunities and design strategies and be

able to independently and objectively apply cost justifications. He or she must be willing and 

able to critically evaluate, address, and influence the building’s operations, institutional policies, 

and procurement processes.

Often, PPLs are not viewed as an integral building system, but as a necessary evil. PPLs are 

often specified by many parties, so equipment and efficiency strategies are rarely handled by one

decision maker. The champion will make sure that all decision makers are on the same page and 

that their decisions save energy and integrate well with other building systems.

2.1.2 Benchmark Current Equipment and Operations

A building walkthrough to identify and inventory PPLs will establish a baseline of current 

equipment and operations.

If your building is representative of multiple buildings in your portfolio, this process is required 

for only one building. You can then implement the applicable strategies portfolio wide.

2.1.2.1 Perform a Walkthrough

A walkthrough helps the champion understand the PPLs. He or she will assess all PPLs, noting

the various types of equipment and the quantity of each type. The champion needs to identify 

PPLs that are common throughout the building, and those that are present in limited quantities. 

At this stage, the champion will also engage PPL users to learn how and why each device is 

used, and if the device is critical to health, safety, or business operations. 

For a detailed example of how a PPL walkthrough is conducted, refer to Frank et al. (2010). 

2.1.2.2 Develop a Metering Plan

The champion will then develop a metering plan. Common items require only a representative 

sample to be metered. For example, if every occupant uses the same type of computer monitor, 

only a small sample needs to be metered. The PPLs that are present in limited quantities, that 

have unknown use patterns, or that are otherwise unique should all be metered if possible. 

Commercially available PPL power meters can be used for this metering. Once the data from the 

walkthrough are collected and analyzed, they can be used to understand: when equipment is 

operated, highlight opportunities to turn off equipment, and replace energy wasting equipment 

with more efficient options.
5

2.1.2.3 Select a Power Meter

A meter that can measure and log electrical power (W) data at a sampling interval of 30 seconds

or faster for a week or more is desirable. This should provide sufficient data to see a 

representative sample of a PPL’s power draw in all power states. A meter that cannot log the 

measured data and that provides only instantaneous power measurements and total energy 

consumption will still offer valuable information, but the power draw profile will be limited to 

the number of measurements that are taken manually. 

The meter should be designed for the type of circuit to be metered (typically 120 V, 15 amp, 60 

Hz in the United States). Also, PPLs are numerous and varied, so the meter should be able to 

accurately meter loads of 0–1800 W (or greater for some larger PPLs). Other desirable features 

include an external display, an internal clock that time stamps each data point, an Underwriters 

Laboratories listing, and a way to transmit data to a local or remote repository. A more detailed 

meter specification list was developed by Frank et al. (2010).

2.1.2.4 Meter the Plug and Process Loads

The steps to execute the metering plan for a given PPL are: 

1. Assure the users that the purpose of the metering effort is to gather data about the 

building’s energy performance, and not to monitor their personal or business activities.

2. Determine whether the PPL can be de-energized to install the meter.

a. Some PPLs cannot be de-energized because they:

i. Pose health and safety concerns.

ii. Interrupt business operations.

iii. Reduce sales.

iv. Affect shutdown procedures.

v. Have complex reconfiguration requirements on startup.

b. If the PPL cannot be de-energized, clamp-on meters can be used as long as each

wire (phase) has already been safely isolated while in a de-energized state. 

3. If a business function will be interrupted by installing the meter, consider waiting until 

nonbusiness hours to do so.

4. If applicable, install any necessary computer software so the meter can be configured and 

the measured data can later be downloaded and analyzed.

5. Set up the meter to measure electrical power at a sampling interval of 30 seconds. 

6. Power down and unplug the device to be metered. 

7. Plug the device into the meter. Plug the meter into an outlet. 

8. If necessary, clear the memory on the meter and go through any other initial setup, such 

as setting the date and time. 

9. Power on the device. 
6

10. Meter the device all day, every day for at least one entire work week. Time and budget 

permitting, meter for longer periods to estimate annual energy use more accurately and to 

capture seasonal use patterns. 

11. Download the metered data for analysis. Calculate at least the average load during 

business and nonbusiness hours.

2.1.2.5 Alternatives to Metering

If metering not possible, perhaps because metering is not an economical option, then Chapter 18 

of the 2009 ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook titled “Nonresidential Cooling and Heating Load 

Calculations” can be used to estimate some loads. The champion can also use the ENERGY 

STAR® database which provides estimates of annual energy use for common PPLs.

2.1.3 Develop a Business Case for Addressing Plug and Process Loads

To gain buy-in from all parties involved, the champion must develop a business case that 

justifies measures to reduce PPLs. 

In most projects, the initial business case is based on energy cost savings. Energy savings alone 

may not be sufficient to justify the most efficient PPL reduction strategy, so nonenergy benefits 

should be highlighted. For example, it is often difficult to justify purchasing best-in-class laptop 

computers with energy cost savings alone. Laptops can be justified, however, because they 

enable work from home and travel mobility. If mobility is not necessary, mini-desktops are 

available that have the efficiency of laptops without their added costs and security concerns.

Another example is centralized multifunction devices, which can reduce maintenance costs and 

unique toner support over individual printers, copiers, and fax machines. Minimizing, 

centralizing, and standardizing document services greatly simplifies the implementation of

robust standby power configurations and significantly lower service costs. Moreover, volatile 

organic compounds from the printer toners can be isolated to a few copy rooms with dedicated 

exhaust to improve indoor air quality. Depending on the building layout and function, as many 

as 300 printers can be replaced with as few as 20 widely distributed multifunction devices. 

For projects such as the RSF with net-zero energy goals, one powerful strategy is the avoided 

cost of renewables metric. This equates the cost of PPL efficiency measures to avoided 

renewable costs. We used this metric to justify many demand-side efficiency measures, 

including PPL procurement and control decisions. The project’s economics were such that the 

annual energy use of a continuous 1-W load required $33 worth of photovoltaics (PV) to meet 

the demand. The PV cost avoided by PPL reductions exceeded $4 million.

2.1.4 Identify Occupants’ True Needs

Identify occupant and institutional true equipment needs—those that are required to achieve a 

given business function; perceived needs are often based on past experience without 

consideration for more efficient strategies. 

To reduce PPLs, the champion must understand what the occupants produce as part of their jobs 

and what tools they require. He or she must be diplomatic enough to help them do their jobs 

energy efficiently without making them feel that the purposes of their jobs are being questioned. 

This can be challenging, because every occupant, including those working in sensitive operations 

(e.g., security, information technology, upper management), should be accounted for. 

Determining occupant needs will reveal any nonessential equipment. A business case should be 
7

made for its continued use; otherwise, it should be removed. Exceptions can be made, especially 

for equipment that preserves health and safety.

Certain PPLs may not be true needs, but are highly desirable. For these, the champion will need 

to work to meet the needs with a shared, centralized piece of equipment and reduce or eliminate 

personal devices. For example, a shared, centralized coffee maker can meet occupant demand 

and eliminate numerous personal coffee makers. 

2.1.5 Meet Needs Efficiently

Once the champion determines the true needs, each must be met as efficiently as possible. 

Specifying ENERGY STAR® and EPEAT® equipment (or better) is a good start, but alone will 

not maximize cost-effective energy savings. The champion should review these databases 

thoroughly and specify the most efficient equipment. He or she should research nonrated 

equipment to find the most efficient model. The champion will need to work with equipment 

manufacturers and suppliers to determine the available options. Once a model is selected, it 

should be turned off when not in use, if possible. 

2.1.6 Turn It All Off

Office buildings are unoccupied for 66%–75% of the hours in a year. A key step in any PPL

reduction program is to reduce energy use during unoccupied hours, as this is generally wasted. 

Details are provided in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

Table 2–1 Annual PPL EUIs in kBtu/ft2∙yr Based on Day and Night Power Densities

Nighttime Power Density (W/ft2)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20

Daytime Power Density (W/ft2

)

0.10 3.0 5.2 7.4 9.7 11.9 14.1 16.3 18.6 20.8 23.0 25.2 27.4

0.20 3.8 6.0 8.2 10.4 12.7 14.9 17.1 19.3 21.5 23.8 26.0 28.2

0.30 4.5 6.8 9.0 11.2 13.4 15.6 17.9 20.1 22.3 24.5 26.8 29.0

0.40 5.3 7.5 9.7 12.0 14.2 16.4 18.6 20.9 23.1 25.3 27.5 29.7

0.50 6.1 8.3 10.5 12.7 15.0 17.2 19.4 21.6 23.8 26.1 28.3 30.5

0.60 6.8 9.1 11.3 13.5 15.7 17.9 20.2 22.4 24.6 26.8 29.1 31.3

0.70 7.6 9.8 12.0 14.3 16.5 18.7 20.9 23.2 25.4 27.6 29.8 32.1

0.80 8.4 10.6 12.8 15.0 17.3 19.5 21.7 23.9 26.2 28.4 30.6 32.8

0.90 9.1 11.4 13.6 15.8 18.0 20.3 22.5 24.7 26.9 29.1 31.4 33.6

1.00 9.9 12.1 14.4 16.6 18.8 21.0 23.2 25.5 27.7 29.9 32.1 34.4

1.10 10.7 12.9 15.1 17.3 19.6 21.8 24.0 26.2 28.5 30.7 32.9 35.1

1.20 11.4 13.7 15.9 18.1 20.3 22.6 24.8 27.0 29.2 31.4 33.7 35.9

Table 2–1 shows the annual plug load energy use intensity (EUI) for a given average daytime 

and nighttime power density. (The table was developed assuming 9 occupied hours per work 

day and 250 work days per year.) Minimizing nighttime PPLs significantly reduces the annual 
8

EUI. The area outlined in red shows the targeted PPLs densities and EUIs for the RSF, 

excluding the data center. Daytime PPLs were modeled to be about 0.50 W/ft2

; nighttime PPLs 

at about 0.19 W/ft2.

2.1.7 Institutionalize Plug and Process Load Measures

The day-to-day energy efficiency of any building depends largely on the decisions of occupants, 

facility managers, and owners. You can therefore reduce PPL energy use significantly by

institutionalizing PPL measures through procurement decisions and policy programs. The 

champion must identify decision makers who can institutionalize such programs. 

2.1.8 Address Unique Plug and Process Loads

Outside contractors or vendors specify some equipment, but the building owner covers their 

energy costs. For such situations, you should contractually require or provide the most efficient 

equipment available. 

Items such as energy-efficient gym equipment and automated teller machines may not be 

available and may be restricted from being turned off. The champion must address these

individually with manufacturers to identify solutions. 

2.1.9 Promote Occupant Awareness

A crucial step in PPL control is to promote occupant awareness of efficiency measures and best 

practices. Occupant awareness can come in such forms as:

• Training

• Informational letters

• Emails

• Signage

• Videos

• Periodic reminders or updates.

The occupants should be encouraged and allowed to “do good”; however, PPL control strategies 

should be designed to counteract “bad users” by turning off equipment that is not in use. Users

should also be educated about the energy ramifications of leaving personal electronics running 

when they leave their workspaces. 

2.1.10 Address Plug and Process Loads (Design Team)

New construction and retrofit projects present additional PPL reduction opportunities that the 

design team should address. The champion should work with the design team to question 

specifications, operations, and design standards that limit these opportunities. The design team 

plays a key role in reducing PPLs by maximizing space efficiency, which increases the number

of occupants who use an area or a piece of equipment. This decreases areas of dense PPLs, such 

as break rooms, common print areas, and cafeterias, because the equipment in these areas is used 

more efficiently.

Early in the design phase, the design team can reduce energy use by integrating PPL control 

strategies into the electrical system to control the outlets at workstations and in common areas. 

This can be as simple as installing switches, vacancy sensors, or timed disconnects for outlets, or 

as sophisticated as controlling outlets through the building management system (BMS). 
9

The design team is typically responsible for specifying equipment such as elevators and 

transformers. The team should first design the stairs to be inviting and convenient, then 

scrutinize elevators to find the most efficient model. Some important features are reduced speed, 

occupancy-controlled lighting and ventilation, and smart scheduling. Some projects may require 

the design team to specify appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, and drinking fountains. 

To achieve greater energy savings, the team must specify the most efficient models. 

The design team is also responsible for process cooling systems in areas with concentrated PPLs 

(such as server rooms and information technology closets). These systems should use, where 

applicable, economizers, evaporative cooling, and waste heat recovery. In server rooms, energy 

use can be further reduced through hot and cold aisle containment. This allows cold air supply 

temperatures to be higher than usual and reduces the process cooling load.

2.2 Controlling Plug and Process Loads

2.2.1 Available Control Strategies for Plug and Process Loads

PPL control comes in two basic forms. The device is either transitioned to a low-power state, or 

it is de-energized to eliminate the power draw. Both can be executed either manually or 

automatically. Low-power state is between a de-energized state and a ready-to-use state. This 

includes standby, sleep, and hibernate modes, as well as any off state that has a parasitic power 

draw. De-energize is when electricity is not being provided to the device. This is analogous to 

physically unplugging a device’s power cord from a standard electrical outlet. 

All control strategies should provide manual override to accommodate atypical PPLs uses (e.g., 

using a PPL outside normal business hours). The design team must evaluate each control 

strategy relative to a PPL, examine its parasitic load versus the PPL’s parasitic load, and 

determine its costs versus the energy cost savings. 

The following sections discuss methods to achieve a low-power or de-energized state. 

2.2.1.1 Built-in Automatic Low-Power State

The first, and in some cases, most effective, control method is a built-in automatic low-power 

state functionality such as standby or sleep. Some manufacturers include this functionality to 

reduce energy consumption of idle devices. Internal processes monitor idle time, and when the 

device has been in an idle state for a given period it will power down to a low-power state.

Built-in automatic low-power state functionality can be a cost-effective control strategy, because 

it is integral to the PPL and does not require additional control devices. It may, however, have 

several issues: 

• Users can configure computers and other items and deactivate the automatic low-power

state functionality. 

• The power draw in a low-power state may be only slightly lower than in the ready-to-use 

state. In this case, the functionality is working as intended, but the power drop is less 

than desired or needed. 

• A device may need to be activated or accessed remotely, which may not be possible in a 

low-power state. 

• The time to transition from a low-power state to a ready-to-use state may be too long. 
10

2.2.1.2 Scheduling Control Device

Certain PPLs have predictable load profiles. These devices are used during the same times each 

day or at regular intervals. A scheduling control device can effectively manage a predictable

PPL. It applies user-programmed schedules to de-energize the PPL to match its use pattern and 

energize the PPL to account for the time it takes for it to become usable.

A scheduling control device can take multiple forms: 

• Basic electrical outlet timers that control a single outlet, or power strips with integrated 

outlet timers to control multiple outlets, provide local scheduling control. Users program 

the schedules. Some PPLs have built-in auto-scheduling that can be used instead of an 

external scheduling control device. This functionality allows a device to transition from a 

low-power state to a ready-to-use state on a set schedule. 

• Scheduling can be controlled with devices in a centralized location. These are typically 

wireless, plug-and-play devices that control one or more outlets and communicate with a 

centralized controller that energizes and de-energizes the outlets based on userprogrammed schedules. One option for implementing centralized scheduling control is 

through the BMS, which could be programmed to implement schedules to energize and 

de-energize outlets. Depending on the building’s electrical system and control level, 

schedules could be established for each outlet, or groups of outlets with similar use 

patterns could be grouped and controlled by a common schedule. 

Scheduling devices are generally straightforward, consistent, and reliable. They target the 

energy that is wasted during nonbusiness hours, but do not necessarily provide the greatest 

energy savings. For instance, a PPL may not be needed during all business hours. All 

scheduling controls should allow for manual override for the times when energy is needed 

outside the preset schedules. 

2.2.1.3 Load-Sensing Control Device

PPLs may have a primary-secondary relationship. A primary device, such as a computer,

operates independently of other (secondary) devices. A secondary device, such as a monitor or 

other peripheral, depends on the operation of other (primary) devices. A load-sensing control 

device should be implemented for such a relationship. It automatically energizes and deenergizes secondary devices based on the power load of the primary device(s). The sensed 

(primary) load is typically an electrical outlet or an auxiliary port (e.g., universal serial bus 

[USB] in the case of a computer).

Load-sensing control may save more energy than scheduling control because it can reduce 

energy use during business and nonbusiness hours; however, it depends on “good” operation of 

the primary (sensed) device. “Good” operation is where users manually control the primary PPL

by forcing a low-power state when the device is not in use (e.g. a user puts their laptop into 

standby when away from their desk). Alternatively, built-in automatic low-power state 

functionality in the primary device must be working effectively put devices into a low-power 

state. Otherwise, load-sensing control method does not save energy. 

A load-sensing device can take several forms:

• Power strips that sense the load of a primary device and control several secondary 

devices locally. 
11

• Central controls. These are typically wireless, plug-and-play devices that control a single 

or multiple outlets. They communicate with a centralized controller that energizes and 

de-energizes the outlets based on user-programmed load thresholds. Primary and 

secondary devices can be in different parts of a building. Also, the controller can be 

programmed such that when the primary device transitions between states, the secondary 

device(s) can be either energized or de-energized. Again, like the scheduling control, the 

central control can be provided by a dedicated PPL control system or integrated into the 

BMS.

2.2.1.4 Occupancy Control Device

In theory, occupancy control can save a great deal of energy. It energizes PPLs only when users

are present and de-energizes them when the space is vacant. This approach pinpoints the main 

source of wasted energy during nonbusiness hours and reduces wasted energy during business 

hours.

Some of its drawbacks are: 

• It may energize and de-energize outlets at inappropriate times. 

• It must focus on the immediate zone surrounding the PPL to be controlled, but not extend 

into other areas. The PPL should be energized only when a user is nearby. 

• Its significant parasitic load may reduce the net energy saved by de-energizing PPLs.

2.2.1.5 Manual On, Vacancy Off Control Device

A manual on, vacancy off control device (which is currently not available) is a slight 

modification of the occupancy control device. It energizes a PPL when it receives manual input 

from a user, and de-energizes the PPL automatically based on lack of occupancy. This control 

should be implemented for PPLs that are needed only when users are present.

This approach also has an even higher potential for energy savings than a typical occupancy 

control device. The PPL will stay in a de-energized state until a user manually energizes the 

device, thus eliminating the wasted energy associated with false positives. This strategy is 

commonly implemented in lighting controls because it effectively reduces wasted energy. 

2.2.1.6 Manual Control

Most PPLs can be manually powered down with built-in power buttons, shutdown procedures, or

a control device that energizes and de-energizes electrical outlets based only on manual input. 

Depending on the equipment, a built-in switch may provide a quick and easy manual method of 

powering the device down or up. Other devices may have a shutdown procedure that users must 

perform to shut down the device. For some devices, manual control is the best or only method. 

The effectiveness of manual control depends entirely on user behavior, and should be 

implemented only if no other methods apply. PPLs could remain powered up at all times if users 

do not actively use manual control. When manual control is the only option, all users must be

made aware that they are responsible for the operation and energy use of the equipment. They

need to be educated about proper use and how their behavior can save or waste energy. 
12

2.2.2 Selecting a Control Strategy for Plug and Process Loads

We developed a flowchart to guide building owners, occupants, operators, and designers through

an effective control strategy for a given PPL and its operation. A poster version of the full chart 

is available for download at http://www.nrel.gov/buildings/pdfs/ppls_controls_flowchart.pdf.

To save the most energy possible, you should specify and procure every PPL according to the 

steps outlined in Section 2.1, then use the flowchart. See Figures Figure A-1 through Figure A-4 in 

Appendix A for a four page version of the flowchart.

The flowchart guides you through a series of questions that help you determine the functionality 

and use of a specific PPL. It provides guidance for an effective control strategy and insights into 

the weaknesses of the PPL if a control is not available. It indicates when the equipment or 

process should be changed in favor of a more efficient approach. If a control is not available, 

you can ask manufacturers to determine whether other equipment options better meet your needs, 

or if the products can be improved.

Once you determine the PPL, the chart recommends user education and awareness (see Section 

2.1.9), which are key to PPL control. Users tend to leave equipment powered on for 

convenience. Educated users know how to balance convenience and energy savings.

In the flowchart, the first PPL feature that is examined is built-in, automatic low-power 

functionality. The path to a control strategy will depend on whether the PPL has a low-power 

state, such as standby, sleep, or hibernate. When a low-power state is available, the chart asks a 

series of questions to determine how the PPL is used. It determines whether the device is

primary or secondary, whether it needs to be accessed remotely, and whether the startup or 

warm-up time from a low-power state is a concern. It then evaluates the effectiveness of the 

low-power state and whether options are available to improve it. After navigating through the 

low-power state branch, you will see one of three options: 

• A control strategy is recommended. 

• No control is available. 

• The PPL can be changed and the evaluation restarts at the beginning with the new 

equipment.

When the PPL does not feature a low-power state, the flowchart questions whether it can be deenergized and reenergized without issue. Many PPLs, such as light bulbs, can be de-energized 

and reenergized, and still reach a ready-to-use state instantaneously or with a brief delay. Others 

require shutdown or startup procedures. Based on the answer, the chart asks questions to 

evaluate the PPL and to determine a control strategy. Then it shows one of three outcomes: 

• A recommended control strategy 

• No control available

• Change the equipment and start over.

In general, the chart is organized so each progression to the right moves the PPL toward an 

appropriate control strategy. When the questions move downward, the PPL is moving toward no 

control or a recommendation to replace. In the case of no control, you may want to ask the 

manufacturers to improve their products.
13

All PPLs must be well understood to be effectively controlled. Some do not have built-in control 

and can be managed by external control solutions. Still others may not be controllable because 

of their configurations, locations, and use patterns.

A PPL’s use pattern also has to be known. Some have predictable and consistent use patterns;

others do not. Some need to operate only while users are nearby; others may be operated while 

users are offsite. Some may be activated or accessed remotely; others only locally. There can be 

startup delays or configuration requirements if PPLs are controlled. PPLs vary greatly in their 

use patterns, so no single control strategy will effectively manage all devices. Each type of 

device requires a tailored control strategy to save the most energy.

2.2.2.1 Walkthrough of Control Strategy Flowchart for a Computer

This example illustrates the process to determine the recommended control strategy for a 

computer. Follow the steps outlined in Section 2.1 to determine that this computer will meet the 

user’s needs. Then use the flowchart to determine a suitable control strategy. The first step is to 

educate the computer user about reducing energy use. 

Figure 2-1 shows the first question and answer. In this example, the computer can transition to a 

standby state. 

Figure 2-1 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 1

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-2 shows the second question and answer. The computer is a primary device because it 

operates independently of other equipment. 

Does the device 

have a built-in, 

automatic lowpower state?

YES
14

Figure 2-2 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 2

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-3 shows the third question and answer. This computer does not need to be accessed 

remotely, so the process continues toward a recommended control strategy.

Figure 2-3 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 3

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

You must now determine whether the time it takes for the computer to come out of standby is an 

issue (see Figure 2-4). This computer transitions from standby to a ready-to-use state in very 

little time, so you can proceed. 

Is the device a 

primary or a 

secondary piece of 

equipment?

PRIMARY

Does the device 

need to be 

activated and/or

accessed remotely?

NO
15

Figure 2-4 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 4

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder`/NREL)

The chart now recommends that the low-power state (standby in this case) be implemented as the 

first form of control (Figure 2-5). 

Figure 2-5 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: low-power state implemented

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

You must now analyze the effectiveness of the built-in standby function (see Figure 2-6). When 

the computer is in standby, is the power draw reduced significantly compared to its ready-to-use 

state? For this example, the computer goes into standby consistently and reliably; once in 

standby, its power use drops significantly.

Is the time it takes 

for the device to 

reach a ready-touse state from 

being in a lowpower state an 

issue?

Implement the builtin, automatic lowpower state 

functionality.
16

Figure 2-6 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 5

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

You must perform additional analysis at this point (Figure 2-7). The computer’s parasitic load is 

greater than that associated with an external control strategy, and the building’s energy goals and 

economics are such that further controlling the computer is cost effective. (See Section 2.3 to 

determine whether a PPL can be controlled cost effectively.)

Figure 2-7 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 6

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

To further reduce the computer’s energy use, you must determine whether it can be de-energized 

and reenergized without being reconfigured (Figure 2-8). This computer cannot be de-energized. 

Is the built-in, 

automatic lowpower state 

functionality 

effective?

YES

Is the device power 

draw in a lowpower state high 

enough that it is 

cost effective to 

purchase and 

implement external 

control to deenergize when not 

in use?

YES
17

Figure 2-8 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 7

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-9 Shows that the computer is energy efficient and must be used to meet the user’s 

needs. It cannot be changed out. 

Figure 2-9 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: question 8

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

A recommended control strategy is shown in Figure 2-10. No additional control is required. The 

flowchart recommends that the computer be controlled by its built-in low-power state and 

manual shutdown procedures. 

Can the device be 

de-energized when 

not in use and reenergized without 

requiring a 

shutdown or 

reconfiguration to 

function?

NO

Can the equipment 

or process be 

changed to allow 

energy savings?

NO
18

Figure 2-10 Flowchart control strategy for a computer example: recommended control

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

2.2.2.2 Walkthrough of Control Strategy Flowchart for an Ice Machine

This example illustrates the process to determine the recommended control strategy for an ice 

machine. Follow the steps outlined in Section 2.1 to determine that an ice machine will meet the 

user’s needs. Then use the flowchart to determine a suitable control strategy. The first step is to 

educate the ice machine user about how to reduce its energy use. 

Figure 2-11 shows that the ice machine cannot transition to a standby state. 

Figure 2-11 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 1

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-12 shows that the ice machine can be de-energized without being reconfigured.

No additional control 

for this device is 

required.

Does the device 

have a built-in, 

automatic lowpower state?

NO
19

Figure 2-12 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 2

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

The next question is whether the ice machine’s power draw is high enough that external control

is cost effective (see Figure 2-13). The ice machine has a significant load when it is operating, 

whether or not it is needed, so the process continues to move to the right on the flowchart. (See

Section 2.3 to determine whether a PPL can be controlled cost effectively.)

Figure 2-13 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 3

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-14 shows that the ice machine is a primary device because it operates independently of 

other devices, so you can proceed. 

Can the device be 

de-energized when 

not in use and reenergized without 

requiring a 

shutdown or 

reconfiguration to 

function?

YES

Is the device power 

draw high enough 

that it is cost 

effective to 

purchase and 

implement external 

control to deenergize when not 

in use?

YES
20

Figure 2-14 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 4

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-15 shows that the ice machine requires a significant amount of time to produce ice after 

being de-energized and reenergized, so you can proceed down on the chart. 

Figure 2-15 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 5

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-16 shows that the ice machine has a predictable use pattern, as it needs to provide ice 

from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. You can proceed.

Is the device a 

primary or a 

secondary piece of 

equipment?

PRIMARY

Is the time it takes 

for the device to 

reach a ready-touse state when 

energized an 

issue?

YES
21

Figure 2-16 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 6

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-17 shows that the ice machine does not have auto-scheduling, so it should be controlled 

by an electrical outlet timer.

Figure 2-17 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: question 7

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

Figure 2-18 shows that an electrical outlet timer should be used to energize the ice machine a 

few hours before it is needed (7:00 a.m.) so sufficient ice is ready. The electrical outlet timer 

should de-energize the ice machine at 5:00 p.m. each day to mitigate wasted energy. 

Does the device 

have a consistent, 

predictable use 

pattern?

YES

Can built-in autoscheduling be 

implemented to 

have the device 

consistently ready 

to use when 

needed?

NO
22

Figure 2-18 Flowchart control strategy for an ice machine example: recommended control

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)

2.2.3 Controlling Typical Plug and Process Loads

NREL researchers have performed extensive PPL research through work on the RSF project and 

on Commercial Building Partnership projects. Table 2–2 shows the recommend control 

strategies for PPLs that are typically found in commercial buildings. The devices listed have 

been processed by the flowchart shown in Section 2.2.2 to arrive at the recommended strategies. 

Device should be 

controlled by an 

external scheduling 

control device.
23

Table 2–2 Recommended Controls for Typical PPLs

Device Built-In Automatic LowPower State Scheduling Load Sensing Occupancy Manual On,

Vacancy Off Manual Control No Control

Audio equipment X X X X

Battery chargers X

Cash registers X X X

Computer monitors X X

Credit card machines X X

Decorative lighting X X

Desktop computers X

Digital photo frames X X

Dishwashers X

Drinking fountains X X X

Electric hole punchers X X X

Electric information displays X X X X

Electric pencil sharpeners X X X

Electric staplers X X X

Fans X X X

Floor cleaners X X X

Floor polishers X X X

Freezers X

Gym equipment X X

Heaters X X

Label makers/printers X X X

Laptop computers X X

Ovens/stoves/ranges X

Paper shredders X X X

Peripherals X

Personal print/copy equipment X

Phones X X

Projectors X X X X

Refrigerators X

Shared print/copy equipment X X

Small kitchen appliances X X

Smart boards X X

Task lighting X X

Televisions X X X X

UPS units X X

Vacuums X X

Vending machine – nonrefrigerated X X

Vending machine – refrigerated

(parishable items ) X X X

Vending machine – refrigerated (nonparishble items) X X

Water coolers X X X

Water filters X X X

Water heaters X X X
24

Several PPLs have multiple recommended strategies, because PPLs and buildings are variously 

operated. You should use the flowchart to analyze devices that are not listed or that are listed 

with multiple recommendations to find the best control strategy for your project and PPL.

2.3 Selecting a Cost-Effective Control Device

You need to evaluate the parasitic load of each potential control device. It would ideally have 

zero parasitic load; in any case, the load must be low enough that it does not negatively offset the 

energy saved by controlling the PPL. For example, a control device with a load of 3 W may, 

depending on its cost, the cost of electricity, and the payback, be acceptable for a PPL that has a 

parasitic load of 20 W. If the PPL has a parasitic load of 2 W, however, the control device will 

use more energy than it saves, so you should find one with a lower parasitic load. 

PPL control devices have an associated cost for features over a standard power strip. Once you 

determine a control strategy, you need to evaluate the devices that feature that control to 

determine whether they function as intended and that the additional cost is justified.

PPL control device prices can vary greatly. At the time this report was written, simple 

scheduling devices could be purchased for less than $20; strategies tied to the BMS may be 

$1000 or more per point. The business case that was developed in Section 2.1.3 can be used to 

determine whether the applicable control device costs can be justified and if the project payback 

requirements are met. 

Figure 2-19 shows the minimum average power draw for a PPL that can be cost-effectively 

controlled by a control device. The graph was developed assuming 9 hours of operation per 

workday and 250 workdays per year. It is also based on a 2-year payback period and for 

simplicity does not account for demand charges. (See Appendix B for other payback periods.)

For a given utility rate, all PPLs with an average power above the line should be controlled. If a 

PPL’s power is below the line, controlling it is not cost effective. For example, if the utility rate 

is $0.06/kWh, and a control device is available for $30 per device, it is cost effective to control 

all PPLs with an average power of 38 W or more.
25

Figure 2-19 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

2.3.1 Other Evaluation Criteria for Control Devices

You should also evaluate control devices for usability, form factor, aesthetics, and user 

friendliness, because users will bypass complicated control devices. A de-energized PPL will 

sometimes be needed during atypical times, so the control devices should also incorporate a 

manual override to energize the PPL. 

The devices should integrate well with the PPLs they are to control and with the building space. 

Plug-in, external control devices should be sized to fit into the spaces between the PPL and the 

electrical outlet. If the device is intended to be visible, its design should, if possible, integrate 

well with the building decor and furniture.

Energy metering can add value to control devices because it provides feedback. When metered 

data are paired with user education, users can alter their behavior to reduce energy use. The 

metering can indicate when energy is being wasted. It will highlight times when energy was 

used unexpectedly so the situation can be investigated. To take full advantage of metering, the 

measured data for all PPLs should be available to all occupants so they can compare their energy 

use to that of their peers. They may even want to have a friendly competition to reduce energy 

use. Desirable features of a control device with metering are provided in Section 2.1.2.1.
26

Table 2–3 illustrates the evaluation criteria used to select a control device.

Table 2–3 PPLs Control Evaluation Criteria

Parasitic Load 

Mitigation Power Management

Usability, Form 

Factor, and Aesthetics

Metering 

Capability Price

• Minimal parasitic load 

for the control device

• Minimize or eliminate 

the parasitic load of 

the PPLs

• Consistent and 

reliable operation of 

the controlled PPL

• Number of controlled 

outlets on the control 

device meets 

occupants needs

• Compatible with the 

BMS

• User friendly

• Incorporated manual 

override

• Physical dimensions 

do not cause space 

issues

• Integrates well with 

the workstation

• Integrates well with 

building decor and 

furniture

• Ability for the 

electrical outlets to be 

oriented to 

accommodate 

different sized plugs

• High level of 

accuracy with 

the ability to be 

recalibrated

• Local display to 

provide user 

feedback

• Ability to record 

and store 

electrical load 

time series data

• Ability to 

remote access 

and control

• Wireless 

communication

• Energy savings 

from the control 

device justifies 

higher cost and 

the payback 

requirements 

are met
27

3.0 Potential Equipment Improvements

The flowchart presented in Section 2.2.2 sometimes recommends that the PPL be changed or that 

there is no control. In such cases, the champion (or equipment procurement staff) should ask 

PPL equipment manufacturers to reduce the energy use of their products.

3.1 Built-in Low-Power Functionality

One of the first checks in the flowchart is whether the equipment has built-in low-power 

functionality. If it does not, it moves one step closer to a no control or replacement

recommendation, which indicates that the champion needs to ask the manufacturers to include 

low-power states in their equipment designs. 

Ideally, all PPLs would have built-in low-power functionality, because accurately matching an 

external control strategy to a PPL can be difficult. Integrated control features could reduce costs

(to users) because there would be no need to purchase additional devices and the control would 

likely be more consistent and reliable. The PPL manufacturers are more qualified to tailor the 

control to the PPL than would a third-party, who would almost certainly have a less effective 

product that is designed to be universally applicable.

3.1.1 Remote Access

Some PPLs receive a “no control” recommendation (see even though they have built-in lowpower functionality, because they cannot be brought out of a low-power state remotely. In this 

case, you should ask the manufacturers to incorporate remote “wake up” functionality. For 

example, most computers have low-power functionality, but they may be left in idle, 

uncontrolled states because they need to be accessed remotely. This may waste significant

energy. 

3.1.2 Warm-up Time

Some PPLs can go uncontrolled because it takes too much time for them be ready to use from a 

low-power state. Users will disable built-in low-power functionality in this case.

3.1.2.1 Auto-Scheduling

If a PPL has a low-power state and a predictable use pattern, but a significant warm-up time, it

would benefit from built-in auto-scheduling. This functionality would begin the warm-up 

process in advance so it is ready to be used when it is needed. Otherwise the PPL would be 

uncontrolled and waste energy. 

3.1.3 Effective Low-Power Functionality

A PPL may receive a “no control” recommendation because its low-power functionality is not 

effective. The champion should request product improvements in this case. An effective lowpower state functions reliably and consistently. The device transitions to a low-power state 

whenever it sits idle for a specified time. Once in a low-power state, the power draw should be 

drastically reduced from the idle or in-use power state. Our research has shown that many PPLs 

have inconsistent low-power functionality. Various processes keep the PPLs from transitioning 

to their low-power states. In some cases, the power draw does not decrease enough to be save 

significant energy. 
28

3.2 De-Energize and Reenergize Functionality

Most control devices reduce PPL energy consumption by de-energizing the outlet that provides 

energy to the equipment. Energy is restored when the PPL needs to be used again. To take 

advantage of these control devices, PPLs must be able to be de-energized and reenergized and be

ready to use. Many PPLs cannot be controlled because they cannot be de-energized and 

reenergized. These PPLs sometimes require a specific shutdown procedure and may become 

damaged if they are de-energized before completing the shutdown. Or, they may require a 

lengthy reconfiguration process once reenergized. Other devices cannot be de-energized and 

reenergized because of convenience or safety concerns. They simply take too long to warm up

when energy is restored. When the flowchart recommends no control because a PPL cannot be 

de-energized, the device should be improved. 
29

4.0 Research Support Facility Results: Plug and Process Load

Controls Evaluation

The RSF has almost 1000 workstations; thus, we procured energy-efficient equipment whenever 

possible and strove to find the best control strategies. Previous NREL workstations had standard 

multiplug power strips with surge protection and manual on/off power switching. They did not 

feature automated power control, and did not have measureable parasitic loads. 

The following sections highlight the process and results of our evaluations of various PPL

controls in the RSF.

4.1 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Various Plug and Process Loads Control 

Strategies in the Research Support Facility

We evaluated commercially available PPL control devices for their energy saving effectiveness, 

generally at workstations with common equipment. Each user at each workstation has a unique 

use pattern, which is a function of work schedule, time spent at the workstation, and time spent 

using the computer. Therefore, results are presented on a user-by-user basis instead of as an 

average. In the following sections, “good” user behavior is when users power down their 

workstations each day. Ideally, “good” users would also put their computers into standby and 

turn off their task lights each time they are away from their workstations.

We tested a few control devices in other areas of the building. The results are presented in the 

following sections.

4.1.1 Baseline Measurements: No Control

We monitored a set of workstations with uncontrolled plug loads to establish a baseline of 

energy use profiles. A typical RSF workstation has two light-emitting diode (LED) backlit 

liquid crystal diode (LCD) monitors (consuming approximately 15 W each), a laptop (consuming 

approximately 30 W), a laptop docking station, and a 6-W LED task light. Some users had

additional equipment based on their job responsibilities. The computer power management 

settings cut signal to the monitors after 5 minutes of idle time; metering indicated that this setting 

worked automatically and consistently.

The NREL Information Services Office (IS) managed the campus information technologies. IS

implemented additional power management settings on all computers that were supposed to 

force standby after 15 minutes of idle time; however, our baseline measurements showed that 

these settings did not work. None of the laptops we metered went into standby automatically. 

Solutions are presented in later sections. 

Figure 4-1 represents the “no control” workstation that was used as a basis for comparison when 

evaluating PPL control devices. All the equipment (the laptop, docking station, two LED backlit 

LCD monitors, and an LED task light) was left powered 24/7. All the computer power 

management settings were disabled so the computer would not go into standby mode or 

screensaver mode, or cut signal to the monitors. The average load was 62 W.
30

Figure 4-1 Load profile of the “no control” workstation; all equipment powered up 24/7

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

4.1.1.1 Energy Impact of User Behavior: The Importance of User Education

Results from the baseline measurements of uncontrolled workstations revealed the importance of 

encouraging “good” user behavior. Ideally, all PPLs control strategies would counteract “bad 

users,” but not all strategies are “user proof.” Controlling every PPL is not always feasible, 

because of budget constraints or because implementing and managing a given strategy are too 

time consuming. Encouraging “good” user behavior can be an effective and inexpensive control 

strategy.

Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 show the workstation load profiles for a user with good behavior and a 

typical user, respectively. Both workstations had the following controls implemented: 

• No signal to monitors after 5 minutes of idle time

• Monitors with built-in automatic low-power state

• Manual power management control. 

Figure 4-2 shows a peak demand that was 8 times higher than that shown in Figure 4-3 (915 W 

compared to 120 W); this was due to extra equipment, including a large printer and several other 

miscellaneous electrical items. Despite the high peak demand, this workstation used about half 
31

the energy (weekly average load 3.4 kWh compared to 6.2 kWh) because everything was turned 

off at night. The user depicted in Figure 4-3 was not educated about effective power 

management and simply locked the computer when away from the workstation. This wasted

energy. Figure 4-3 illustrates the need for user education and the consistent use of standby 

functionality.

Figure 4-2 Measured load profile of a workstation with good occupant behavior

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

Figure 4-3 Measured load profile of a workstation without good occupant behavior
32

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

4.1.2 Built-In Automatic Low-Power State Control

As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, NREL’s IS implemented computer power management settings

that force standby after 15 minutes of idle time. These efforts were ineffective because our 

network activity kept the computers from going into standby. We evaluated several third-party 

programs (Invent 2011; Slawdog 2003) to counteract the network activity and to consistently and 

automatically force standby. 

Figure 4-4 shows the load profile of a workstation that used an effective third-party power 

management program. This program was set to force standby after 6 minutes of idle time and

after 5:00 p.m. each day. This workstation had the following additional controls implemented: 

no signal to monitors after 5 minutes of idle time; monitors with built-in automatic low-power 

state; and manual power management control. 

Figure 4-4 Load profile of a workstation with idle time triggered control only and good 

occupant behavior

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

Compared to the “no control” workstation, the third-party software reduced the average power of 

the workstation by 47.5 W (14.5 W compared to 62 W). The remaining load (when the computer 

was in standby) was from the docking station and laptop charging. 
33

4.1.2.1 Usability Issues

In our study, several users disabled the third-party power management program. Some regularly 

ran computer simulations that required their computers to run for long periods without user 

input. The program forced their computers into standby before their simulations were complete,

because it was based on user inputs only and not on computer processing. Ideally, the power 

management program would also account for computer processing to determine whether the 

computer is idle. Other users disabled the power management program because their computers 

took too long to emerge from standby state. On the other hand, the power management program 

caused almost no issues with users who had typical computing needs (creating and editing 

documents and spreadsheets, reading and sending emails, using the Internet). With more than a 

75% reduction in the average workstation load by using standby, we strongly recommend that 

built-in automatic low-power state control be implemented on as many workstations as possible. 

If there are issues similar to the network activity experienced at NREL, we recommend user 

education to promote manual implementation of standby and investigating third-party programs 

to force low-power states.

4.1.3 Scheduling Control Device

Figure 4-5 shows the load profile of a workstation that used a power strip with digital timer 

control. The power strip was configured to energize the workstation only between 5:30 a.m. and 

7:00 p.m. on weekdays. This workstation had the following additional controls implemented: 

no signal to monitors after 5 minutes of idle time; monitors with built-in automatic low-power 

state; and manual power management control. The workstation was configured so all equipment 

(e.g., laptop, docking station, monitors, and task light) was powered by control outlets. 
34

Figure 4-5 Load profile of a workstation with digital timer control only and good user behavior

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

The digital timer power strip reduced the average power of this workstation by 48.5 W over the 

“no control” workstation (13.5 W compared to 62 W). It could be reduced further if the digital 

timer were configured to match the user’s work schedule instead of a general 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday schedule. Implementing either a consistent built-in automatic lowpower state or third-party low-power state control (see Section 4.1.2) would yield maximum 

savings for the digital timer power strip control strategy.

Scheduling control is best suited to PPLs that have a consistent, predictable use pattern. The ice 

machine in the RSF’s coffee kiosk is one example. A power strip with digital timer control was 

configured to energize its outlets between 5:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. weekdays. This gave the ice 

machine enough time to make ice in the morning before the coffee kiosk opened (7:00 a.m.). 

The machine was de-energized at the same time that the coffee kiosk closed every day (3:00 

p.m.). Figure 4-6 is the measured daily load profile of the ice machine with and without 

scheduling control.
35

Figure 4-6 Load profile of the ice machine in the RSF’s coffee kiosk

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

The digital timer-controlled power strip reduced the average power of the ice machine from 327

W to 157 W, a 52% saving, without impacting the quality of ice production during business 

hours.

4.1.3.1 Usability Issues

The default configuration was to have all the workstation outlets controlled by the digital timer. 

Very few users had problems. Users who needed to run computer simulations on their laptops 

overnight found in the morning that the battery had fully discharged. This was corrected by 

plugging the laptop into an “always on” outlet and leaving the other workstation equipment to be 

controlled by the digital timer. 

Some digital timer power strips have an override function that bypasses the digital timer control;

however, unless the user turns off the override function, the auto-scheduling control will not be 

implemented.

4.1.4 Load-Sensing Control Device

4.1.4.1 Universal Serial Bus Load-Sensing Control Device

A USB load-sensing power strip senses when a computer’s USB port is de-energized when the 

computer transitions to a standby or off state, and cuts all power to workstation outlets. In our 

study, the power strip was configured to monitor one of the USB ports on a laptop. Figure 4-7 is 
36

the measured daily load profile of a workstation that used a USB load-sensing power strip. This 

workstation had the following additional controls implemented: no signal to monitors after 5 

minutes of idle time; monitors with built-in automatic low-power state; and manual power 

management control. The workstation was configured so that all equipment (e.g., laptop, 

docking station, monitors, and task light) was powered by control outlets. 

Figure 4-7 Load profile of a workstation with USB load-sensing control only and good user 

behavior

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

The user of this workstation put his laptop into standby only once per day. The average load was

17 W (a 45-W saving over the “no control” workstation). 

4.1.4.1.1 Usability Issues

No issues were reported for this control device.

4.1.4.2 Plug Load-Sensing Control Device

A plug load-sensing power strip senses a change in the power draw on an outlet, because the 

plugged-in PPL is transitioning from an in-use state to a low-power state, and cuts all power to 

workstation outlets. In our study, the power strip was configured to monitor the plug that powers 

the laptop docking station. Figure 4-8 shows the measured daily load profile of a workstation 

that used a plug load-sensing power strip. This workstation had the following additional controls 
37

implemented: no signal to monitors after 5 minutes of idle time; monitors with built-in 

automatic low-power state; and manual power management control. The workstation was 

configured so that the computer and docking station was powered by the sensing outlet and the 

rest of the equipment (e.g., monitors and task light) was powered by control outlets. 

Figure 4-8 Load profile of a workstation with plug load-sensing control only and good user 

behavior

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

The user of this workstation put his laptop into standby only once per day. The average load was

22 W (a 40-W saving over the “no control” workstation). 

4.1.4.2.1 Usability Issues

No issues were reported for this control device.

4.1.5 Occupancy Control Device 

Occupancy control is not the most suitable for controlling computer power because power is 

interrupted periodically, independent of the state of a computer. An occupancy control power 

strip was used to control only the workstation task light because of the power interruption issue. 

Figure 4-9 shows the measured daily load profile of a task light that used an occupancy control 

power strip.
38

Figure 4-9 Load profile of a task light with occupancy control only

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

This task light had an average load of 4.6 W (a 1.2-W saving over the “no control” task light)

because of the occupancy control power strip’s parasitic load (2.7 W).

4.1.5.1 Usability Issues

The main complaint about the tested occupancy control power strip was that it did not always 

detect movements. Most users turned the no-motion-power-off delay on their power strips to 15 

minutes. Repositioning the occupancy sensor also helped improve movement detection.

4.1.6 Manual On, Vacancy Off Control Device

Manual on, vacancy off control devices were not studied because they are not currently 

available.

4.1.7 Manual Control

Manual control of PPLs can take many forms, including mechanical switches tied to wall outlets, 

remote controls, and built-in power switches. It can be used to power down a device or just put 

it into a low-power state. However, its effectiveness depends on “good” user behavior. Three 

power strips with remote switches were studied. Two used a wireless remote placed on the 

desktop to allow manual control of the power strip outlets; one used a wired remote. All offered 

a remote that gave users a conveniently located manual switch to de-energize the outlets. The 
39

primary difference between these power strips and a conventional one is that the manual switch 

is located on the desktop rather than under the desk, on the floor, behind a cabinet, or at another 

less convenient location. Figure 4-10 is the measured daily load profile of a workstation that 

used a remotely controlled power strip. This workstation had the following additional controls 

implemented: no signal to monitors after 5 minutes of idle time; monitors with built-in 

automatic low-power state; and manual power management control. The workstation was 

configured so that all equipment (e.g., laptop, docking station, monitors, and task light) was 

powered by control outlets. 

Figure 4-10 Load profile of a workstation with manual control only “good” behavior

(Credit: Michael Sheppy/NREL)

The user of this workstation used the remote control power switch only once per day. His

average load was 19 W (a 43-W saving over the “no control” workstation).
40

5.0 Equipment and Strategies Implemented in the Research Support 

Facility

The following energy-efficient equipment and strategies were implemented in the RSF to meet

occupant needs and reduce PPLs. Control solutions implemented in the RSF are highlighted.

5.1.1 Server Room

5.1.1.1 Research Support Facility Server Room Equipment and Controls

NREL’s previous data center used a number of servers that typically had a utilization of less than 

5%. When the total data center power draw was divided among all users, the continuous power 

consumption rate per person was 119 W (Sheppy et al. 2011). The uninterruptible power supply 

(UPS) and room power distribution units were 80% efficient. 

The RSF data center uses blade servers running virtualized servers. When the total data center 

power draw is divided among all users at NREL, the continuous power consumption rate per 

person is 45 W (Sheppy et al. 2011). The current UPS and room power distribution are 97%

efficient.

The RSF data center’s lighting is controlled by manual on, vacancy off light switches. The blade 

servers have variable-speed fans that can ramp up or down to meet cooling needs.

5.1.1.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Server Rooms

UPSs serve two main functions in server rooms: (1) they condition line power; and (2) they 

maintain power delivery during power outages until the backup generator kicks on. Typical 

legacy UPS efficiency is around 80%; these devices produce extra heat that requires additional 

cooling. When procuring a new UPS, the following features are critical:

• 95% + energy efficiency

• Scalable design

• Built-in redundancy

• End user serviceable

• Sufficient uptime 

• Compliant with the efficiency guidelines of the Server System Infrastructure initiative, 

which set open industry specifications for server power supplies and electronic bays.

The UPS should be loaded so it operates at peak efficiency. The manufacturer’s documentation 

provides information about the relationship between loading and efficiency.

Energy-efficient power distribution units should be used. To further reduce the power footprint, 

blade servers should be procured that use variable-speed fans and energy-efficient power 

supplies, and run virtualization software (to decrease the required number of physical servers).

Hot aisle containment dramatically reduces cooling loads by preventing supply and return air 

from short circuiting (mixing with each other). This strategy also provides the opportunity for 

waste heat recovery; however, it is an involved change to the server room that is best suited for 

new construction and retrofit projects that can afford the downtime to arrange the cabinets.
41

5.1.2 Workstations

5.1.2.1 Research Support Facility Workstation Equipment and Controls

The PPL audit of previously occupied NREL office space revealed numerous opportunities to 

reduce PPLs from workstation equipment. Approximately 90% of employees used desktop 

computers. When idle, these computers went into a screensaver mode or displayed an idle 

desktop screen. Monitors were typically either fluorescent backlit LCD displays or cathode ray 

tube displays. To reduce computer energy consumption, 90% of the RSF occupants use laptop 

computers with LED backlit LCD monitors. Figure 5-1 shows the measured load profile of a 

laptop computer and two, 22-in. LED backlit LCD monitors.

Figure 5-1 Load profile of a laptop computer and two monitors with ideal control and user 

behavior 

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

The average power draw for this laptop and display combination was 54 W during occupied 

hours and 5 W during unoccupied hours. Further savings during unoccupied hours are achieved 

with a load-sensing controlled outlet on a power management surge protector to eliminate the 

parasitic load of the docking station (see Figure 5-1).

The previous strategy for dealing with idle computers was to lock them out after 15 minutes and 

display a security screensaver. The screensaver increased average power by 5 W compared to an 

idle state (30–35 W for a laptop locked out in the security screensaver versus 25–30 W for a 

laptop in use). Setting the monitor into a standby state while the computer runs the screensaver 

reduces power draw, but is not an optimal solution. Setting both the computer and monitor into 

standby saves the most energy, reducing power from 25–30 W to 5 W. To further reduce 

Load Profile: Ideal RSF Workstation
42

computer energy use, the computers used in the RSF have been set to put the monitor into 

standby after 5 minutes of idle time, and then the computer into standby after 15 minutes of idle 

time. As previously stated, the built-in standby functionality has not performed as intended. The 

users have been instructed to manually force standby to reduce energy use. 

Additional equipment in the previously occupied workspaces included a task light, a phone, and 

miscellaneous items such as cell phone chargers, lights (decorative or functional, or both), minirefrigerators, coffee pots, electric teapots, fans, personal heaters, label makers, and radios. The 

task lighting used traditional linear fluorescent lamps and fixtures and the phones were standard 

models. These items received power from standard six-plug surge protectors.

The RSF workstations feature efficient 6-W LED task lighting and voice-over Internet protocol

phones that consume a constant 2 W. NREL IS power settings turn off the LCD screens on these 

phones after 1 minute of idle time. All other items have been discouraged or allowed only as 

approved. Some users initially wished to bring the additional equipment from the previous 

office space. NREL provided employees with educational documentation that discussed the 

building’s specifics and goals and emphasized the impact the building occupants have on overall 

energy use. The effort increased buy-in by helping employees understand why the equipment 

was being limited. 

We intended that power at the workstation be controlled by a load-sensing power strip that has a 

1.5-W parasitic load. It has two pairs of controlled outlets and four always-powered outlets. It is

designed so that when power draw on one of the paired sensor outlets drops, power is cut to the 

sensor outlet and paired controlled outlet. It is desktop mounted so the main power button is 

easily accessible. We evaluated and compared this to other available devices and determined it 

was a suitable option; however, the evaluation process discussed in this report was not yet 

developed. In practice, the installed control devices have not performed as expected. Their load 

sensing is inconsistent, causing equipment to be de-energized at inappropriate times or not at all. 

This has caused some usability issues, so occupants are bypassing the control outlets and using

only the always-powered outlets. Also, its parasitic load is higher than that of the equipment it 

controls. 

5.1.2.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Workstations

Workstations represent a significant fraction of office building PPLs and overall building energy 

use. Moorefield et al. (2008) found that computers and monitors account for the largest share of 

PPLs energy use in office spaces. Computers are usually their biggest energy users. An in-use 

standard desktop computer will consume 100 W on average (Lobato et al. 2011). Replacing 

desktop computers with laptop computers, which have an average power draw of 30 W while in 

use, saves considerable energy. The champion needs to work with information technology 

representatives to implement computer power options that save energy. Computers that sit idle 

or that run screensavers waste considerable energy (see Figure 5-2 below). 
43

Figure 5-2 Load profile of a computer and two monitors with various screensaver and power 

management settings. (Credit: Chad Lobato/ NREL)

Figure 5-2 shows that the screensaver causes computers to consume on average 5 W more than 

an idle computer. Instead of a screensaver, if the monitors are set to go into standby after five 

minutes of inactivity, there would be a savings of 36 W. Additional savings can be had if the 

computer is set to go into standby after 15 minutes of inactivity (a total of 68 W compared to the 

base case). Power management options should be set such that computers and monitors go into 

standby or sleep mode after 15 and 5 minutes of idle time, respectively. If built-in power 

management functionality is ineffective, third-party software solutions should be implemented to 

achieve reliable standby operation. 

Monitors are the next-largest energy consumer at workstations. A powered-up cathode ray tube

monitor can draw as much as 70 W. Replacing old monitors with energy-efficient LCD monitors 

saves energy. To achieve the greatest savings, LED backlit LCD monitors should be used. A

powered-up 19-in. fluorescent backlit LCD monitor uses approximately 30 W; a powered-up 19-

in. LED LCD monitor uses 10 W.

Depending on the number of workstations, replacing computers and monitors can be a very 

costly measure. If capital is not available, you can replace equipment in stages as the project 

budget allows, or when older pieces fail. For the NREL RSF project, the normal turn-over rate 

on computers is 3 years and with a procurement strategy, nearly all equipment has now been 

replaced with energy efficient equipment. 

Incandescent or fluorescent tube task lighting should be replaced by efficient compact 

fluorescent lamps or LED task lighting. Replacing standard phones with low-power voice-over 

Internet protocol phones provides additional workstation savings.

Office workstations are often equipped with personal single-function devices such as printers, 

scanners, and fax machines. Consolidating these items into shared multifunction devices reduces 

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

11:25 11:40 11:55 12:10 12:25 12:40

Power (W)

Time

Computer Energy Consumption

Monitor and Computer

Screensaver On (W)

Monitor Standby (W)

Monitor and Computer

Standby (W)
44

PPLs and saves energy. Further savings can be realized by enabling the power option settings on 

the multifunction devices to go into standby after 15 minutes of idle time.

5.1.3 Break Rooms and Kitchens

5.1.3.1 Research Support Facility Break Room and Kitchen Equipment and Controls

A key design team contribution to reducing PPLs included maximizing space efficiency in 

shared areas. The previously occupied NREL office buildings had break rooms with 

refrigerators, microwaves, coffee pots, drinking fountains, and vending machines. Each served 

approximately 40 occupants. The RSF features the same amenities, but each break room serves

approximately 60 occupants, which reduced the number of energy-consuming appliances. 

Further savings are achieved with efficient refrigerators (48 W average load) and by eliminating 

mechanically cooled drinking fountains. The kitchens have ample refrigerator space, 

dishwashers, coffee makers, and microwaves to eliminate the need for personal equipment. 

Where available, all equipment is best-in-class Energy Star specified equipment. Management 

and safety policies disallow the use of personal equipment at individual workstations. Special 

cases are considered for business or other justified reasons.

The nonrefrigerated kitchen appliances are controlled by digital timer-controlled power strips.

5.1.3.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Break Rooms and Kitchens

Old refrigerators can waste energy. Aging, inefficient refrigerators should be replaced with the 

most efficient full-size ENERGY STAR refrigerators. All personal mini-refrigerators and 

underused full-size refrigerators should be removed. The PPL audit performed on the NREL 

coffee kiosk revealed that mini-refrigerators can use the same energy as full-size refrigerators.

Items such as coffee pots, toasters, and microwaves should be upgraded with units that have 

limited parasitic loads from status LED lights or displays. In many cases, the lights and displays 

are not needed and waste energy. These items should be powered by electrical outlet timers so 

they are powered down during unoccupied hours.

Vending machines can consume a large amount of energy. Underused machines should be 

removed and aging, inefficient machines replaced with the most efficient ENERGY STAR 

equipment. Removing the display lighting yields additional energy savings. Deru et al. (2003) 

found that combining a load-managing device with delamping could reduce energy consumption 

in vending machines by 45%–55%. Many such devices are commercially available; the simplest 

is an electrical outlet timer. 

The drinking fountain coolers should be removed or disconnected. Bottled water coolers should 

also be removed. Filtered water at each sink replaced bottled water dispensers which not only 

use energy as a PPL, but also require trucking water to the site. 

5.1.4 Elevators

5.1.4.1 Research Support Facility Elevators and Controls

The RSF employs energy-efficient regenerative traction elevators rather than the standard 

hydraulic elevators that typically operate in low-rise office buildings. Each has a potential 

annual saving of 7000 kWh (KONE 2006), depending on use, compared to standard hydraulic 

elevators. Each is equipped with energy-efficient fluorescent lighting and fans, which are turned 

off when the car is unoccupied. The stairwell design is inviting (to encourage their use), with 

wide steps and windows for daylighting and mountain views.
45

Occupancy-controlled lighting and ventilation are installed in RSF elevators. This helps to 

reduce loads when the cars are unoccupied.

5.1.4.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Elevators

Elevator car lighting and ventilation are typically powered whether or not the car is occupied. 

Adding occupancy sensors to control lighting and ventilation saves energy. 

5.1.5 Telecommunications Room Equipment

5.1.5.1 Research Support Facility Telecommunications Room Equipment and Controls

Standard equipment is used and no control strategies are implemented in the RSF.

5.1.5.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Telecommunications Rooms 

Typical telecommunications rooms provide continuous power to all Ethernet switches and ports. 

To reduce PPLs, these switches and ports should be intelligently powered and enabled based on 

occupant needs.

5.1.6 Conference Room Equipment

5.1.6.1 Research Support Facility Conference Room Equipment and Controls

Conference rooms use video projectors, high-definition multimedia interface switchers and

extenders, Blu-ray and DVD players, wireless microphone systems, integrated controllers, 

speaker systems, audio amplifiers, and electric projector screens as standard equipment. PPL

controls were not implemented for the RSF conference rooms.

5.1.6.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Conference Rooms

Conference rooms are subject to varying use schedules. A key to reducing PPL energy use is to 

implement controls that disconnect or turn off equipment when the space is unoccupied. 

Electrical outlet timers can be used to power down equipment during nonbusiness hours. 

Occupancy sensors can be used to disconnect power when the rooms are unoccupied during 

business hours. Beyond load control, the space should be outfitted with energy-efficient 

equipment. LED backlit LCD televisions and energy-efficient audiovisual equipment should be 

used. Policies should be implemented to address equipment that is supplied by individual users 

and that is only temporarily powered. The policies would require use of efficient equipment that 

is powered only when needed.

5.1.7 Small-Scale Food Service Areas

5.1.7.1 Research Support Facility Equipment and Controls

A coffee kiosk provided a variety of hot and cold beverages and food to occupants in three of 

NREL’s previous office buildings. The espresso machine and water heater were powered up all 

day and all night. The espresso machine had a continuous average load of 455 W. Multiple 

glass-front mini-refrigerators were used to store food and cold drinks. Overall, it had an average 

continuous load of nearly 1400 W.

The RSF coffee kiosks are significantly more energy efficient. The espresso machines go into 

standby mode when they are not in use during occupied hours, and are turned off during 

unoccupied hours. The manufacturer claims a 30% in-use energy saving (General Espresso 

Equipment Corporation 2009). They have an estimated continuous average load of 150 W each. 

Food and cold drinks are stored in full-size refrigerators with nontransparent doors. All minirefrigerators have been eliminated. Four coffee brewers automatically reduce the water 
46

temperature in their boilers when idle. Mechanical switches cut power to all items except the 

refrigerators, freezers, and cash registers during unoccupied hours. Overall, the coffee kiosks

have an estimated average continuous load of nearly 700 W each. The ice machines are

controlled by electrical outlet timers to turn off during unoccupied hours, which reduces 

continuous power draw from 327 W to 110 W each. The RSF has two ENERGY STAR soda 

vending machines and one snack vending machine that feature efficient LED display lighting, 

which is controlled by occupancy sensors.

5.1.7.2 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Small-Scale Food Service Areas

As with the break rooms and kitchens, replacing aging, inefficient equipment with the most 

efficient ENERGY STAR rated equipment saves energy. Food service areas present unique 

challenges because they are often outfitted and operated by outside vendors. It is important to

set contractual requirements and to work with vendors to ensure energy-efficient PPLs and 

operations in these areas. For example, refrigerators should be required to have solid front doors 

rather than glass doors. A glass door refrigerator can use twice the energy of a similarly sized 

solid front refrigerator. Multiple mini-refrigerators should be consolidated into fewer full-size 

refrigerators to save energy. 

Food service equipment can have large parasitic loads when the space is unoccupied. Electrical 

switches, or a similar method, should be provided to easily disconnect power to all nonessential 

equipment during nonbusiness hours. Cutting the loads during nonbusiness hours drastically 

reduces annual energy use. Contractual requirements should be set to ensure outside vendor

equipment is disconnected and powered down during nonbusiness hours.

For equipment that is not rated by ENERGY STAR, those responsible for specification and 

procurement should work directly with manufacturers to determine the most efficient option. 

Many manufacturers offer low-energy options.

5.1.8 Miscellaneous

5.1.8.1 Equipment and Operation Guidelines for Miscellaneous Areas

For office buildings that have large file storage needs, motorized compact shelving units should 

be replaced with manual hand crank compact shelving units to save energy. Compact shelving 

manufacturers offer manual models that provide adequate gearing in the hand crank to limit the 

effort needed to move the shelving.

Management policies should be implemented to address PPLs. They should minimize or 

eliminate personal electronic equipment (coffee makers, fans, heaters, mini-refrigerators, 

decorative lighting, etc.) at the workstations. The policies should establish a standardized list of 

the energy-efficient equipment to be used in the building, and provide a process for addressing 

atypical circumstances and granting exceptions.

Items such as lobby displays, ice machines, and exercise equipment can be effectively controlled 

by outlet timers, which should be configured so the equipment is powered up only during 

business hours.

For new construction and extensive retrofits, it is good practice to aggregate plug loads onto 

dedicated electrical panels. With dedicated plug load panels, the circuits can be integrated with 

the building control system to turn off all plug loads during unoccupied times. These panels also 

allow for easy submetering.
47

Plug loads often depend heavily on occupant behavior and equipment operation. To maximize 

savings, office building owners need to educate employees about the energy impacts of their 

behaviors.
48

6.0 Conclusion

PPLs are found in every building type. In a minimally code-compliant building, they may 

account for up to 25% of the total building energy use, but as buildings become more efficient, 

that number can increase to as high as 50%. Occupants in office buildings are typically seated at 

their desks for 10% of the year. Using a control strategy to match plug load use to occupancy is 

a huge untapped potential for energy savings. 

The importance of controlling PPLs was low in the past, as the energy use has historically been 

small relative to other building energy end uses. Also, the loads vary drastically, which 

complicates the control. As the other building systems become more efficient, the energy 

performance of buildings is driven more by occupant behavior and the resulting PPL energy use. 

PPLs are unique loads that provide multiple functions and services, and are variously operated. 

Building design teams are rarely held accountable for PPLs because they are owner specified and 

are highly occupant dependent. At the same time, building owners and occupants do not always 

know what is required to specify, procure, and operate PPLs energy efficiently.

To complicate matters, manufacturers are starting to bring products to market to reduce PPL

energy use. Each claims savings, but few provide the detailed information needed to make an 

educated decision about the best control strategy for a given PPL. 

The same PPL type may have completely different use patterns from one location to another. 

Control schemes must therefore be individually tailored. Presently, no single device can control 

all PPLs properly. This, paired with the ever-growing market for control devices with limited 

product information, drives the need for the guidance provided by the flowchart discussed in this 

paper. The flowchart removes some of the confusion associated with PPL controls and provides 

a roadmap for you to select an appropriate control. You can then evaluate a condensed list of

available devices that offer the appropriate control to determine which best meets your needs.

In existing buildings, equipment needs to be inventoried and benchmarked (see Section 2.1). 

This process will help you understand what is needed to meet the occupants’ business needs. 

Then these needs should be met as efficiently as possible. Only then can the control provide the 

highest energy savings.

Computers are unique and challenging PPLs; they are also among the most common PPLs in 

commercial buildings and therefore require specific attention. In office buildings, computers 

quickly become major energy consumers because they are typically provided for all building 

occupants. Reducing their energy consumption when not in use may save significant energy.

Computers are generally set up at workstations that feature multiple secondary devices. When 

energy-efficient equipment such as LED backlit computer monitors and LED task lights replace 

equipment with dated technology, the parasitic load is reduced to the point that controlling the

computer becomes the main concern. 

A desktop computer should not be de-energized without going through a proper shutdown 

procedure. A laptop computer can be de-energized because of the built-in battery backup, but if 

it is left in an idle state the battery can fully discharge before a proper shutdown procedure is 

performed. Thus, computers should not be controlled by scheduling or occupancy-based control 

devices. They also should not be set up as secondary devices that are controlled by load sensing 

on a primary device.
49

Computers are primary devices that must rely on manual control, built-in low-power states, or 

third-party hardware and software solutions that perform the needed tasks to transition them 

from a ready-to-use state to a low-power state. Manual control can be effective, but it is not 

consistent and can vary depending on the users. Additional control should be implemented to 

account for this inconsistency. This is where the built-in low-power state should provide the 

main control. Unfortunately, this control can become as inconsistent as manual control. Once 

computers are configured to meet the user needs, installed programs could maintain processes 

that do not allow the computer to transition to the low-power state. 

Ideally, the built-in functionality would operate consistently and provide the control needed to 

decrease energy consumption in computers. This, however, is not the case. Third-party 

programs can be used to improve the built-in functionality. Hardware and software options are 

available that force a transition to a low-power state based on user input. Other software options 

use computer idle time and scheduling to force the transition without relying on user input. 

These solutions are temporary fixes until the built-in functionality can be improved to work 

consistently in all installations. Computer manufacturers need to focus on this to enable the 

greatest PPL energy savings. Once computers can reliably and consistently go into low-power 

states, they can be used reliably as the sensed (primary) device in a load-sensing control scheme 

to control secondary devices. 
50

7.0 References

DOE. (2009). 2009 Buildings Energy Data Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/.

Deru, M.; Torcellini, P.; Bottom, K.; Ault, R. (2003). Analysis of NREL Cold-Drink Vending 

Machines for Energy Savings. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory: 

NREL/TP-550-34008. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34008.pdf. 

Frank, S.; Lobato, C.; Long, N.; Gentile Polese, L.; Rader, E.; Sheppy, M.; Smith, J. (2010). 

Monitoring and Characterization of Miscellaneous Electrical Loads in a Large Retail 

Environment. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-5500-50044. To 

be published.

General Espresso Equipment Corporation. (2009). “Astoria Presents: Plus 4 You, The First 

Energy Saving Machine in the World.” 21st Annual SCAA Exposition, Atlanta, GA.

Invent Technology Solutions Ltd. (2011). Ecobutton one small click, one big change. United 

Kingdom. www.eco-button.com/. 

KONE Corporation. 2006. KONE Green Calculator – Compare Hydraulic Elevators with 

KONE EcoSpace. Finland. www.kone.com/media/en_US/green/index.html.

Lobato, C.; Pless, S.; Sheppy, M. (2011). Reducing Plug and Process Loads for a Large Scale, 

Low Energy Office Building: NREL’s Research Support Facility. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/CP-5500-49002. 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49002.pdf.

McKenney, K.; Guernsey, M.; Ponoum, R.; Rosenfeld, J. (2010). Commercial Miscellaneous

Electric Loads: Energy Consumption Characterization and Savings Potential in 2008 by 

Building Type. Lexington, MA: TIAX LLC. May. http://zeroenergycbc.org/pdf/2010-05-

26%20TIAX%20CMELs%20Final%20Report.pdf.

Moorefield, L.; Frazer, B.; Bendt, P. (2008). Office Plug Load Field Monitoring Report. 

Durango, CO: Ecos. 

Slawdog E-Solutions, Inc. (2003). Smart Shutdown Classic Home Page. 

www.slawdog.com/products/smartsd/index.aspx. 

Sheppy, M.; Lobato, C.; Van Geet, O.; Pless, S.; Donovan, K.; Powers, C. (2011). Reducing 

Data Center Loads for a Large-Scale, Low-Energy Office Building: NREL’s Research Support 

Facility. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/BK-7A40-52785.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52785.pdf

U.S. General Services Administration. (2006). Workplace Matters. Washington, DC: U.S. 

General Service Administration.
51

Appendix A Flowchart for Selecting a Control Strategy for Plug and Process Loads

A.1 Flowchart Sheet A

Figure A-1 PPL control selection process flowchart: Sheet A

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)
52

A.2 Flowchart Sheet B

Figure A-2 PPL control selection process flowchart: Sheet B

(Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)
53

A.3 Flowchart Sheet C

Figure A-3 PPL control selection process flowchart: Sheet C

 (Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)
54

A.4 Flowchart Legend

Figure A-4 Flowchart Legend

 (Credit: Joelynn Schroeder/NREL)
55

Appendix B Minimum Power Draw to Justify Control

Sections B.1 through B.5 show the minimum average power draw for a PPL that is not in use 

that can be cost effectively controlled by a control device. The graphs were developed assuming 

9 hours of operation per work day and 250 work days per year. They vary by the assumed 

payback period. For a given utility rate, all PPLs with an average power while not in use above 

the line should be controlled. If a PPL’s power is below the line, controlling it is not cost 

effective. Figure B–1 through Figure B–5 show 1-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 10-year paybacks.

B.1 One-Year Payback Period

Figure B–1 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 1-year 

payback

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)
56

B.2 Three-Year Payback Period

Figure B–2 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 3-year 

payback

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

B.3 Four-Year Payback Period

Figure B–3 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 4-year 

payback

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)
57

B.4 Five-Year Payback Period

Figure B–4 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 5-year 

payback

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)

B.5 Ten-Year Payback Period

Figure B–5 Minimum load that can be cost-effectively controlled by a control device – 10-year 

payback

(Credit: Chad Lobato/NREL)
58

Appendix C Control Devices

The parasitic load of each control device was measured with a Watts Up? Pro ES meter. This 

meter has known inaccuracies, which are discussed by Frank et al. (Frank 2010). The table below 

represents a sample of testing that NREL conducted on select control devices. This table is not a 

comprehensive list of equipment available and represents a sample of control devices on the 

market at the date that NREL did the testing. It should be used as a template for others to study.

Table A - 1 List of Tested Control Devices

Device Name Control Type

Metering 

Capable?

Parasitic Load (W) Number 

Energized De-energized of Outlets

ThinkEco Modlet Schedule –

Wireless Yes 0.3 0.3 2

Jetlun Appliance Module 

and Gateway

Schedule –

Wireless Yes 1.1 1.1 1

Belkin Conserve Switch Switch – Wireless No 0.9 0.1 8

Belkin Conserve Surge with 

Timer

Schedule – Built-In 

Timer; Switch –

Wired

No 0.1 0.0 8

Isole IDP-3050 Power Strip 

with Personal Sensor Occupancy No 2.6 2.6 8

Lightning Switch 

Continental Transmitter and 

Plug-In Receiver

Switch – Wireless No 0.1 0.6 1

GE Digital Strip Timer 

(GE06694)

Schedule – Built-In 

Timer No 0.9 0.9 8

EcoStrip USB 2.0 Power Level 

Sensed – USB No 0.0 0.0 6

iGo Power Smart Tower Power Level 

Sensed – Plug No 1.5 0.1 8

Belkin Conserve Smart AV Power Level 

Sensed – Plug No 0.0 0.0 8