Nati Harpaz, CEO of Dotz Nano Limited
For energy managers, the case for improving building performance is rarely the problem. The difficult part is turning a sound idea into a project that can compete for capital, survive procurement and deliver savings without disrupting the people who use the building.
That is especially true across older public-sector and institutional estates. Heating, hot-water and ventilation systems have often been extended over decades. Metering can be patchy. Controls may not communicate with one another. A plant room can appear to be doing its job while quietly using far more energy than it needs.
The usual response is to start with equipment: replace the boiler, install a heat pump or upgrade the building management system. Sometimes that is exactly the right answer. But buying new equipment before understanding how a building actually behaves can lock an organisation into an expensive solution without addressing the underlying waste.
The better place to start is with three practical questions. Where is energy being used? Where is it being wasted? And which changes can be measured well enough for someone to stand behind the result?
Begin with the building, not the product
Every building has its own operating pattern. A hospital, hotel, university and council office may use similar equipment, but their occupancy, hot-water demand, operating hours and tolerance for disruption are entirely different.
That is why a useful feasibility study must go beyond a desktop estimate. It should establish a reliable baseline, combine historical bills with live metering, identify how the existing plant behaves under different loads and determine whether controls, maintenance or equipment changes will make the greatest difference.
In many cases, the first opportunity is not wholesale replacement. It may be correcting poor sequencing, reducing unnecessary run times, recovering heat that is currently discarded or matching generation more closely to demand. The aim is not to install the most technology. It is to achieve the best performance from the building as a whole.
AI needs evidence, not hype
Artificial intelligence is becoming a familiar part of the energy conversation, but it should not be treated as a magic layer placed over weak data.
Used properly, software can detect patterns that are difficult to see in monthly bills. It can compare energy use with occupancy, weather and plant conditions, flag unusual behaviour and continuously adjust how connected systems operate. That can help energy teams move from reacting to high bills towards managing performance as it happens.
But the value comes from the combination of software, reliable sensors, live metering and practical engineering. If the data is incomplete or the recommended change cannot be implemented safely, the algorithm has achieved very little. Energy managers should ask what is being measured, how decisions are made, what happens if connectivity is lost and whether savings can be independently verified.
Change who carries the performance risk
Even when the technical case is strong, many projects stall at the same point: capital expenditure.
Public-sector organisations face no shortage of competing priorities. An energy upgrade must often compete with frontline services, maintenance backlogs and other essential works. A project with a multi-year payback can be attractive on paper and still remain unfunded.
Performance-based energy services offer another route. Under this model, a provider can fund, install, operate and maintain agreed upgrades, with its return linked to verified savings rather than an upfront equipment sale. The building owner avoids carrying the full initial capital cost, while the provider has a direct incentive to keep the system performing.
This is the approach we are developing through Dotz Energy, combining live data, AI-assisted optimisation and physical upgrades where the evidence supports them. The important point, however, is broader than any one provider. The commercial model should align everyone around the same result: lower energy use, lower cost and measurable carbon reduction.
The safeguards matter. Baselines must be transparent. Savings calculations must be agreed in advance. Responsibilities for operation, maintenance, data access and equipment ownership must be clear. Energy managers should also understand how the arrangement deals with changes in occupancy, tariffs or building use.
The next phase of building decarbonisation will not be won by technology alone. It will be won by combining good engineering, trustworthy data and commercial models that make action easier to approve. For many estates, the biggest breakthrough may not be a new piece of equipment. It may be removing the need to choose between reducing energy waste and funding everything else the organisation has to do.
This article appeared in the September 2026 issue of Energy Manager magazine. Subscribe here.
