vaayaa Inclusive Education
Technical risk assessment

Energy Management and Audit Risk Assessment: Metering, Savings Claims and Control Risks

A worked example of how an energy management team finds, scores and controls risks in metering, savings claims, audits, contractor billing, supply contracts and building control systems, so reported energy performance can be trusted.

Updated November 2026 8 hazards assessed Review every 6 months Highest risk: Critical to High
See the Energy Management and Audit course

Executive summary

This assessment shows how an energy management team can find, rate and control the risks that affect the accuracy of its energy reports, the value of its savings claims and the safety of its audit work. Eight risks were chosen because they are plausible in everyday energy management and audit. Savings overstatement and building control system exposure are the most serious, while meter errors and contractor billing are more routine but still costly. Each risk is scored before controls and again after existing and added controls. Most risks fall to Medium or Low once added controls are in place, but savings overstatement stays High because the baseline is hard to verify. The first actions are a permit to work for site surveys, a signed savings baseline, completion certificates before contractor payment and multi-factor access to building controls. The portfolio is a teaching example, so every score illustrates method, not a real organization.

Focus area
Energy management, energy auditing and performance verification
Setting
Energy management team of a multi-site commercial property portfolio with periodic internal and external energy audits
Method
Five by five likelihood and impact risk register

Scope

This assessment covers energy use and savings reporting across a set of commercial buildings, from meter data and utility bills to energy audits, savings claims, contractor work, supply contracts and building control systems. It looks at risks to accurate reporting, safety, legal duties and trust. It does not give engineering design, tariff or legal advice. Jurisdiction, building types, metering systems and contract terms are assumptions made for teaching.

Context

The team has an energy manager, two energy analysts, a facilities lead and an IT contact who supports the building management system. Meters report to a central data platform, with spreadsheets used for some baselines and adjustments. Contractors carry out audits and retrofit work, and an external reviewer checks a sample of savings claims each year. Results go to senior management and a sustainability committee each quarter. Each risk is scored before controls and again after existing and added controls to show how much the controls reduce exposure.

Objectives, assets and stakeholders

The objective is to report energy use and savings accurately, deliver audit findings that can be acted on, keep people safe on site, meet reporting duties and keep the trust of owners, tenants and regulators. The assets in scope are meters and submeter data, utility bills, the central data platform, baseline and adjustment workings, building control systems, plant and electrical equipment, and the reputation of the team. Stakeholders include the energy manager, facilities staff, senior management and the sustainability committee, building tenants, contractors, the external reviewer, utilities and the authorities that receive reports. Each risk has one owner role, and the energy manager keeps the register current and reports each quarter.

Risk matrix: before and after controls

Each cell shows hazard numbers placed by likelihood and impact. Compare the two grids to see how controls move each hazard.

Before controls

Inherent risk

Risk before controls: rows are likelihood from almost certain to rare, columns are impact from insignificant to catastrophic. Cells list hazard numbers.
1
Insignificant		 2
Minor		 3
Moderate		 4
Major		 5
Catastrophic
5 Almost certain
4 Likely Likelihood 4, impact 3, score 12, high: H01 Likelihood 4, impact 4, score 16, high: H08 Likelihood 4, impact 5, score 20, critical: H02
3 Possible Likelihood 3, impact 3, score 9, medium: H06 Likelihood 3, impact 4, score 12, high: H04 Likelihood 3, impact 5, score 15, high: H05
2 Unlikely Likelihood 2, impact 3, score 6, medium: H07 Likelihood 2, impact 4, score 8, medium: H03
1 Rare

After controls

Residual risk

Risk after controls: rows are likelihood from almost certain to rare, columns are impact from insignificant to catastrophic. Cells list hazard numbers.
1
Insignificant		 2
Minor		 3
Moderate		 4
Major		 5
Catastrophic
5 Almost certain
4 Likely
3 Possible Likelihood 3, impact 2, score 6, medium: H04 Likelihood 3, impact 4, score 12, high: H02
2 Unlikely Likelihood 2, impact 2, score 4, low: H07 Likelihood 2, impact 3, score 6, medium: H01 H03 H06 Likelihood 2, impact 4, score 8, medium: H05 H08
1 Rare
  • Low 1 to 4
  • Medium 5 to 9
  • High 10 to 16
  • Critical 17 to 25

Hazard register

A summary first, then the detail for each hazard.

Summary of hazards with scores before and after controls
No.HazardBeforeAfterOwner
H01 Meter and submeter data errors 12 High 6 Medium Energy analyst lead
H02 Overstated savings from a weak baseline 20 Critical 12 High Energy manager
H03 Auditor independence and conflicts of interest 8 Medium 6 Medium Compliance officer
H04 Contractor billing errors and fraud 12 High 6 Medium Procurement lead
H05 Electrical and plant safety during site audits 15 High 8 Medium Facilities manager
H06 Energy supply contract and price exposure 9 Medium 6 Medium Treasury lead
H07 Missed or inaccurate energy and carbon reporting 6 Medium 4 Low Sustainability reporting lead
H08 Building control system cyber exposure and setpoint tampering 16 High 8 Medium IT manager
H01

Meter and submeter data errors

Technology and data Before 12 After 6

Meters are miscalibrated, mapped to the wrong floor or tenant, or drop out, so consumption figures used for baselines and reports are wrong.

Who or what is affected: Energy team, tenants and senior management

Causes

Ageing meters, poor labeling after tenant changes and manual mapping of submeters to spaces.

Consequences

Wrong savings figures, misallocated costs and disputes with tenants.

Existing controls

  • Automated alerts flag meters that stop reporting.
  • Utility bills are compared with meter totals each month.

Control gaps

Meter mapping is updated only when a complaint arrives, so errors persist for months.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Validate new meter installations against a commissioning checklist and a known test load.
  • Detect: Run a monthly check for gaps, spikes and flat readings on every meter.
Likelihood 4 x impact 3 before; 2 x 3 after Owner: Energy analyst lead Target: Within 45 days Early warning: A meter that reports zero or flat readings for more than seven days.
H02

Overstated savings from a weak baseline

Financial Before 20 After 12

Savings are claimed against a baseline that is poorly documented, poorly adjusted for weather or occupancy, or chosen after results are known, so reported savings exceed real savings.

Who or what is affected: Senior management, investors and funders

Causes

Pressure to show results, complex adjustments and no independent check before publication.

Consequences

Misleading reports, lost funding, withdrawn claims and damaged credibility.

Existing controls

  • Savings are reported against a baseline period chosen in writing.
  • The external reviewer samples a set of claims each year.

Control gaps

Baseline changes are not logged, so a shift in the reference point goes unseen.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Fix the baseline method and its adjustments in writing before any project starts.
  • Detect: Compare claimed savings with metered results each quarter and explain any gap above a set level.
Likelihood 4 x impact 5 before; 3 x 4 after Owner: Energy manager Target: Within 60 days Early warning: A savings claim that rises after a baseline change with no written reason.
H03

Auditor independence and conflicts of interest

Reputational Before 8 After 6

An auditor or consultant has a link to a contractor or supplier being reviewed, or feels pressure to soften findings, so audit results are not objective.

Who or what is affected: Energy team, contractors and senior management

Causes

Long relationships with contractors, fee pressure and unclear rules on gifts and hospitality.

Consequences

Loss of trust, poor investment decisions and disciplinary action.

Existing controls

  • Auditors sign a declaration of interests each year.
  • Audit reports are reviewed by a second person before release.

Control gaps

Declarations are filed but never compared with current engagements.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Check independence in writing before each engagement and rotate auditors on large sites.
  • Respond: Offer a confidential route to raise concerns and record how each one is handled.
Likelihood 2 x impact 4 before; 2 x 3 after Owner: Compliance officer Target: Within 60 days Early warning: A declared interest linked to an open audit or contract.
H04

Contractor billing errors and fraud

Supplier Before 12 After 6

Invoices for audits, retrofits or maintenance are inflated, duplicated or issued for work not done, or bank details are changed to divert payments.

Who or what is affected: Energy team, finance staff and the business

Causes

Lump sum work with weak measurement and pressure to close projects before year end.

Consequences

Direct loss, disputed costs and a breakdown in trust with contractors.

Existing controls

  • Invoices are matched to purchase orders before payment.
  • Bank detail changes are confirmed by phone with a known contact.

Control gaps

Work is signed off by the same person who ordered it, so checks are not independent.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Require signed completion certificates and measured quantities before any invoice is paid.
  • Detect: Review duplicate invoices and contractor rates against the agreed schedule each month.
Likelihood 3 x impact 4 before; 3 x 2 after Owner: Procurement lead Target: Within 30 days Early warning: An invoice that has no completion certificate attached.
H05

Electrical and plant safety during site audits

Safety Before 15 After 8

Auditors and contractors enter plant rooms, roofs and switchboards, and may be exposed to live parts, moving machinery, hot surfaces or confined spaces during measurement.

Who or what is affected: Auditors, facilities staff and contractors

Causes

Pressure to complete surveys quickly and unclear responsibility between the contractor and the site.

Consequences

Injury, enforcement action and stopped work.

Existing controls

  • A permit to work is used for live or high-risk areas.
  • Auditors complete a site induction before entry.

Control gaps

Permits are not checked against the work actually done on site.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Use isolation and lock out rules and avoid live measurement unless a competent electrician is present.
  • Respond: Keep first aid kits and an emergency contact list at each site and rehearse the procedure each year.
Likelihood 3 x impact 5 before; 2 x 4 after Owner: Facilities manager Target: Within 30 days Early warning: A survey entered without a permit or induction record.
H06

Energy supply contract and price exposure

Financial Before 9 After 6

Fixed or indexed supply contracts, demand charges and market price moves change energy costs, and a supplier may misbill or fail, so budgets and forecasts are wrong.

Who or what is affected: Finance team, tenants and senior management

Causes

Market volatility, unclear tariff terms and reliance on a single supplier.

Consequences

Budget overruns, cash strain and unplanned charges to tenants.

Existing controls

  • Budgets use a central forecast reviewed each quarter.
  • Supply contracts are reviewed before renewal.

Control gaps

Demand charges are not forecast separately from energy use.

Additional controls

  • Detect: Compare each supplier invoice with the contracted tariff and flag any charge outside it.
  • Prevent: Hedge a share of expected load and avoid locking all volume into one contract.
Likelihood 3 x impact 3 before; 2 x 3 after Owner: Treasury lead Target: Within 90 days Early warning: A monthly bill more than a set percentage above forecast with no known cause.
H07

Missed or inaccurate energy and carbon reporting

Legal and compliance Before 6 After 4

Reports on energy use, emissions or efficiency are filed late, use the wrong factors or omit sites, so regulators and the public receive inaccurate information.

Who or what is affected: Regulators, investors and the public

Causes

Reporting rules that vary by location and site lists that change after sales or acquisitions.

Consequences

Penalties, corrected filings and loss of stakeholder trust.

Existing controls

  • A reporting calendar lists each recurring submission.
  • Emission factors are recorded with their source.

Control gaps

Site lists are not reconciled to the property register each quarter.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Keep a reporting calendar with an owner and a backup owner for every submission.
  • Detect: Ask a qualified reviewer to test one report each year against source records and the rules that apply.
Likelihood 2 x impact 3 before; 2 x 2 after Owner: Sustainability reporting lead Target: Within 30 days Early warning: A site missing from the reporting list when the property register shows it as active.
H08

Building control system cyber exposure and setpoint tampering

Technology and data Before 16 After 8

Weak passwords, unpatched controllers or open remote access let outsiders or staff change temperatures, schedules or alarm settings, which wastes energy and disrupts occupants.

Who or what is affected: Tenants, facilities staff and the IT contact

Causes

Shared accounts, internet connected controllers and vendor access left open after service visits.

Consequences

Energy waste, comfort complaints, equipment damage and data exposure.

Existing controls

  • Remote access requires a named account and a password.
  • Controller firmware is updated when the vendor issues a fix.

Control gaps

Vendor accounts are not reviewed after each service visit.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Limit remote access to approved users with multi-factor sign in and disable unused network ports.
  • Detect: Log every setpoint change and alert on changes made outside working hours.
  • Recover: Keep a tested backup of controller settings and restore it within a set time.
Likelihood 4 x impact 4 before; 2 x 4 after Owner: IT manager Target: Within 30 days Early warning: A setpoint change logged outside working hours with no matching work order.

Rating method and evaluation

Each risk is rated on two five-point scales. Likelihood runs from Rare to Almost certain, and impact runs from Insignificant to Catastrophic. Multiplying the two gives a score from 1 to 25, which falls into one of four bands: Low from 1 to 4, Medium from 5 to 9, High from 10 to 16 and Critical from 17 to 25. The score guides the order of work and is not a precise measurement. Inherent risk is the score before any controls. Residual risk is the score after the existing and added controls, and it must never be higher than the inherent score. Impact is judged on energy cost, reporting accuracy, safety, legal exposure and trust, and a savings or safety risk is never rated down only because it has not happened yet. Anything still High needs senior attention and a dated plan, anything Medium needs routine controls with a named owner, and anything Low is accepted and watched. Ratings are challenged by the analysts who do the work and by the external reviewer, and each rating is revisited whenever an indicator reaches its escalation threshold.

Likelihood, impact and rating bands

Likelihood

  • 5 Almost certain: Expected to happen in most circumstances.
  • 4 Likely: Will probably happen in many circumstances.
  • 3 Possible: Could happen at some time.
  • 2 Unlikely: Not expected, but it could happen.
  • 1 Rare: Only in exceptional circumstances.

Impact

  • 1 Insignificant: No lasting effect. Handled within routine work.
  • 2 Minor: Small effect that is quickly corrected.
  • 3 Moderate: Noticeable effect that needs managed effort to correct.
  • 4 Major: Serious effect on people, delivery or reputation.
  • 5 Catastrophic: Severe or lasting effect that threatens the whole activity.

Bands (likelihood x impact)

  • Low (1 to 4): Accept and monitor.
  • Medium (5 to 9): Manage with routine controls.
  • High (10 to 16): Senior attention and a treatment plan.
  • Critical (17 to 25): Act first. Do not proceed until reduced.

Monitoring, escalation and review

Review this assessment every 6 months, and sooner when an indicator below reaches its threshold.

Early-warning indicators and escalation thresholds
Indicator to watchEscalate when
Meters reporting zero or flat readings for more than seven days.Escalate to the energy analyst lead at once, and to the energy manager if still open after 14 days.
Savings claims that rise after a baseline change with no written reason.Escalate to the energy manager before any report is issued, and to the sustainability committee if the claim has been published.
Invoices paid without a completion certificate on file.Escalate to the procurement lead the same week, and hold further payments to that contractor until resolved.
Site surveys entered without a permit or induction record.Stop the survey at once and escalate to the facilities manager, who reports to the head of operations within two working days.
Setpoint changes logged outside working hours with no matching work order.Escalate to the IT manager within one working day, and lock the account if the change is not explained.

Contingency arrangements

If a serious event occurs, such as confirmed billing fraud, a control system compromise, an electrical injury or a savings report that must be withdrawn, the energy manager stops related payments or setpoint changes and preserves records. Facilities staff make the site safe and follow the emergency procedure. The IT contact isolates the affected controllers and restores settings from the latest tested backup. Reports are corrected, and the sustainability committee and affected tenants are told early and plainly. Legal and regulator contacts are made through the head of operations as required in the relevant jurisdiction. Specialist review is needed for any electrical, legal or contractual decision.

Prioritized action plan

  1. Issue a permit to work for every site survey involving live or high-risk areas, owner facilities manager, within 14 days.
  2. Require signed completion certificates before any contractor invoice is paid, owner procurement lead, within 30 days.
  3. Limit remote access to building controls with multi-factor sign in, owner IT manager, within 30 days.
  4. Validate meter data monthly and fix mapping after every tenant change, owner energy analyst lead, within 45 days.
  5. Fix and sign off the savings baseline and its adjustments before any project starts, owner energy manager, within 60 days.

Conclusion

Reliable energy reporting depends on a few steady habits: validated meter data, a fixed and signed baseline, independent checks on contractors and auditors, a permit for every site visit and locked down building controls. The highest inherent scores sit with savings overstatement and control system exposure, and each has actions that bring the residual score down. Treat the register as a living record, review it on the stated cycle, and seek qualified engineering, legal and reporting advice for any real decision.

Assumptions and limitations

Assumptions

  • The portfolio includes several buildings of mixed age, and some sites have only partial submetering.
  • Energy savings are reported against a baseline period agreed in advance and adjusted for weather and occupancy.
  • Staff are trained in basic electrical and mechanical safety, and contractors hold their own competence records.
  • Jurisdiction and reporting rules are not specified, so legal duties are described in general terms only.

Limitations

  • The scores are examples for learning and do not describe any real portfolio, building or audit.
  • Energy, carbon and reporting rules differ by place and change over time, so specialist review is needed.
  • This is educational content and does not replace a formal site-specific energy audit or licensed engineering advice.

Related frameworks to study

  • Energy management system approach with planning, action, checking and review
  • Measurement and verification principles for savings claims
  • Three lines model of risk ownership
  • Hierarchy of controls

Technical Risk Assessment

China, India, United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, South Korea, Australia, Spain.

For Learning Reference Only: This assessment demonstrates how risk assessment principles are applied in a practical setting, providing a useful reference for learning and understanding. Actual assessments may be adapted to suit specific site conditions and circumstances.

Keep learning

Study the subject behind this assessment.

Energy Management and Audit course Read the best practices for this course

More Technical risk assessments

Hourly Active: 45,552 Learners