Demand Response in Critical Environments: Can Cleanrooms and Labs Participate Safely?
As utilities increasingly encourage large facilities to reduce electricity demand during periods of grid stress, laboratories and cleanrooms are beginning to evaluate whether demand response (DR) programs can fit within their operations. For many facility owners, however, the idea raises immediate concerns. Can energy use be reduced without affecting environmental conditions, regulatory compliance, or research integrity?
The answer depends less on whether a building is a laboratory and more on how thoroughly the facility is prepared before participating. Rather than treating demand response as a simple energy-saving exercise, experts emphasize that it should be approached as an extension of existing operational and safety practices.
One of the most persistent misconceptions is that participation in demand response automatically requires sacrificing critical environmental controls. According to Dan Diehl, CEO of Thrive Buildings, this assumption overlooks the engineering and planning that should occur before any program begins.
“Safety can never be compromised,” Diehl says. “The key is to understand the operating potential of the systems and to be able to operate them in the DR mode with a 'belt and suspenders' approach.”
That philosophy starts with identifying which building systems have operational flexibility and which do not. Critical safety functions—including those supporting environmental health and safety (EH&S), containment, and research protection—remain non-negotiable. Instead, facility teams should focus on carefully engineered control strategies, optimized baseline operations, and opportunities outside of laboratory spaces.
“It is also key to point out that, many times, these buildings are 50 percent or more non-lab spaces and so [they] also present great opportunity,” Diehl notes.
Maintaining environmental stability is another major consideration. Cleanrooms and research laboratories often rely on tightly controlled pressure relationships, air change rates, temperature, and humidity. Any modification to these systems requires careful analysis.
According to Diehl, properly designed strategies can preserve critical pressure relationships even when airflow is adjusted. “First, pressure cascades don't change with the proper lowering and raising of ACH. Today, when we drive airflow higher from the minimums that are set to, the offsets don't change and so [they] don't impact pressure.”
For most facilities, safe participation begins with a comprehensive risk assessment. Facility management, engineering teams, and EH&S personnel should work together to evaluate potential operational impacts, establish acceptable operating limits, and determine how the building will respond if conditions change unexpectedly.
“Risk assessment and EH&S engagement are critical to supporting the control strategies and ensuring that they do not compromise safety,” Diehl says.
Demand response should also be incorporated into existing commissioning and change management processes rather than implemented as a standalone initiative. Any modifications to control sequences should be validated through recommissioning, rebalancing, and formal change control procedures before the building participates in an event.
“These are almost hand in glove and will need to be done with recommissioning and proper change control procedures,” Diehl explains. “We first work to optimize base operating loads and embed lots of other control adjustments via recommissioning and rebalancing and then we look to embed the DR activation strategies.”
Automation also plays an important role, although implementation varies by program. Early participation often benefits from close oversight while facilities gain confidence in the control strategies.
Perhaps the greatest risk is not participation itself, but implementing demand response without fully understanding how interconnected laboratory systems operate. “The risk comes in when this comprehensive approach isn't done and for example someone is just trying to cut energy without understanding how connected and related all these items are,” Diehl says.
As utilities continue expanding grid-interactive programs and laboratories pursue greater energy efficiency, demand response is likely to become an increasingly relevant design consideration. Success will depend not on reducing energy at any cost, but on integrating demand flexibility into a comprehensive framework of risk assessment, commissioning, automation, continuous monitoring, and, above all, protecting the safety and performance of critical research environments.
