We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our privacy policy.

The importance of NABERS tracking

The importance of NABERS tracking

HFM Commercial Building Clients






HFM has the unique opportunity to compare the influence that monthly utility tracking has had on the annual NABERS ratings for several Office buildings across Australia.

HFM’s team of NABERS Accredited assessors, perform several NABERS Ratings across Australia, each year. A great percentage of those buildings are also subscribed to HFM’s Utility Tracking services.

This case study focuses on the results obtained during an internal analysis that aimed to identify differences in performance for commercial buildings where HFM undertook annual NABERS Ratings & monthly utilities tracking; versus buildings where HFM only performed NABERS Ratings.



For those sites where monthly utility reporting was provided our objectives have been to incrementally improve the NABERS rating and reduce utility expenditure for each site over the reporting period.



The data shows that for the sites where HFM provided monthly utility tracking, their ratings have either improved over time or stayed the same (when already performing well).

The change in MJ/M2 was calculated year on year and a dollar figure applied. The result was an average saving of $22,000 per site over a typical comparison period of 3-5 years depending on which site it was.

The chart below shows the results obtained within a 5-year period by 5 of the buildings where HFM performs monthly utilities monitoring.

Monthly utility tracking

It can be observed that 3 out of these 5 sample buildings progressively increased their NABERS Energy Ratings. (Buildings A, D & E). Building A reflects great improvement within the 5-year period, starting with a 1.5 NABERS Energy Rating in Year 1; and obtaining a 4.5 NABERS Energy Rating in Year 4 (of the program). Building C maintained a 5.5 NABERS Energy Rating throughout the 5-year period; while Building B experienced an improvement in the second year, however during the third year in the program it went back to having a 3 NABERS Energy Rating.

The chart above shows that for 5 out of the 5 sample sites which did not have monthly tracking, the annual ratings have declined at least once, over the assessment period.