CI 2009 EAc3: Measurement and Verification

The chilled water must be submetered and billed to the tenant as specified in the RG. It does not have to be a separate payment, but it must be separately identified from the rent. There are a number of potential approaches to identifying the "cost" of the chilled water, but the simplest would be to analytically disaggregate the base building chiller energy use and bill it pro-rata based on the tenant chilled water consumption.

Based on Table 2 in the Reference Guide I think the answers to your questions are:
- A submeterSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy or water use within a building attributable to specific end uses such as tenant spaces, or subsystems such as the heating component of an HVAC system. is required for process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making.
- If an all-electric AHU1.Air-handling units (AHUs) are mechanical indirect heating, ventilating, or air-conditioning systems in which the air is treated or handled by equipment located outside the rooms served, usually at a central location, and conveyed to and from the rooms by a fan and a system of distributing ducts. (NEEB, 1997 edition) 2.A type of heating and/or cooling distribution equipment that channels warm or cool air to different parts of a building. This process of channeling the conditioned air often involves drawing air over heating or cooling coils and forcing it from a central location through ducts or air-handling units. Air-handling units are hidden in the walls or ceilings, where they use steam or hot water to heat, or chilled water to cool the air inside the ductwork. is serving only your space then a submeter is required. If the AHU serves your tenant space and another space, then a submeter is not required (if you are already paying a pro-rated portion of the bill as part of rent)
- It seems as if a submeter would be required if the electric reheat is only present in your space

I'm not sure if I follow the technicalities of the question, but in the end I think that they are irrelevant. Paying utilities on a pro rata basis is exactly what the credit is trying to discourage and is ineligible. The energy must be submetered so that the tenant is aware of, and pays for their actual energy use, not on a shared pro-rata basis.

To be consistent with the intent of the credit, it sounds like you'd want to follow Case 2 (prepare an M&V plan) for the full occupied building and follow Case 1 (sub-metering) for the partially occupied building.

Yes sir, but not sure if a hybrid is permitted. However our MEP argued from a holistic perspective, the M&V plan is unnecessary (work) so our approach should be to follow Case 1, arguing that the total space constitute <75 percent of total area thereby we simply submeterSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy or water use within a building attributable to specific end uses such as tenant spaces, or subsystems such as the heating component of an HVAC system..

What you think? A quick reply is appreciated, I got to conclude this matter in a meeting tomorrow!

The first question that I would pose is whether these two buildings/projects can even be submitted as a single CI project..... I would think not.

Interesting situation from the perspective of semantics, but the intent of the credit is to facilitate awareness of energy use. In this regard while the tenant is technically paying the energy costs, there must still be a mechanism in place to provide direct feedback re. the energy use and/or cost of that space in particular, as opposed to the entire building. If it's simply energy submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system). with no cost information , then the project would be in compliance with Option 1. If the submetering also provides cost information related to the tenant space, then I would argue that it meets the intent of Option 2.

What is really being asked is whether the tenant space is served by a base building plant or by its own plant i.e. under the control of the tenant. If it's the former, submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system). of the energy flows provided to the tenant space is required. If it's the latter, then monitoring of the tenant-controlled plant falls within the metering requirements.

Susan, I think the answer depends on your space. There are three different options described above -- B, C, and D.

Notwithstanding the fundamental problems with the EAc3 language as I have described in strings above (the matter is making its way up the EA TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. priority list for discussion and hopefully resolution), the second part/requirement of Case 1 specifies only energy costs, not water. While I suppose that it could be argued that if the building owner pays for water, then water should be inherently included in deference to the intent of the credit, that is not the situation in this case. So, my interpretation is that you do not have to include water to achieve the 3rd point. However, I cannot speak for the GBCI on the matter, and given the lack of absolute clarity, so a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide may be in order if this point is critical to your project.

Hi Tristan and Christopher, can help to comment about my doubt?
do we need to installing a BAS as to comply to Case 2?

As I mentioned in a previous reply/string above, Option C is not an appropriate approach in most cases and arguably should not have been included in the credit language. Regardless, the submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system). systems must have some means of collecting and collating data into a useable form. This can be through the BAS or a standalone system. Utility bills can be used as a component of the metering system (provided that the bills can be aligned with the submetering data), but I suggest that this is an awkward approach.

I concur that the nomenclature is confusing. For Case 1, "submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system)." essentially means metering of the main energy sources in the tenant space e.g. electricity, natural gas, hot water, chilled water, etc. (Note that with the exception of process, electrical end-uses can be combined into a single meter.) More technically speaking, this is "submetering" relative to the main building meters. In the context of Case 2, "submetering" is the metering of the individual energy uses - notwithstanding that the credit language above calls this "metering", which is arguably incorrect.

Sorry Gordon, but did I get you right.
In a Case 2 project I allways have to meter electricity for Lighting, Plug Loads, Heating, Cooling, etc. separatly. A combiened meter for "all" the electricity consumed by the tenant is not sufficient.
Thanks!

I would say you can do this. Check what is normally requested as documentation and then provide something as close to this as possible. A letter on the owner/tenant's letterhead describing the situation would probably be a good adjunct.

First, please see the various comments above that the reference to IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. for Case 1 should be ignored.

Notwithstanding the problems with the EAc3 Reference Guide material (mostly related to Case 2), the metering and utility payment requirements for Case 1 are OK and fairly clear. In this particular case the electrical requirements appear to be met (with the possible exception of the electricity for some of the fan coil units - clarification is needed on this issue). Allocating HVAC costs on a prorata area basis is acceptable provided that the "gross" costs reflect the actual HVAC utility cost for the billing period i.e. not a "flat" or constant rate built into the lease. See page 191 of the CI RG under "Payment" for further elaboration.

I'm still not sure that the Case 2 requirements to monitor all the items in the manual is correctly specified.
An interior project is much less likely to install a BAS or monitoring sytstem, nor is it likely to include many of the components of a centralised plant that would make sense to monitor items like boiler efficencies, cooling load, air and heat recovery economy cycles requested by the credit as minumum requirements.

Also the comment that this follows LEED-NC is not true, it is based on the old version of LEED-NC2.2 as NC-2009 now is not so specific in its requirements.

I think the LEED-CI tech committee has copied the old version of LEED without thinking through what is really required assuming that a tenat occupying >75% of a building must be a owner occupier of a large commerical office.

Does anyone have any experience in submitting Case 2 for LEED-CI 2009 or think we can make a case not to install air pressure monitoring and items not easliy monitored in a relatively small building <20,000ft2

Yes, there are serious problems with the EAc3 CI language on a number of levels. Rather than reusing/rehashing the NC 2.0/2.1 language as Julian points out above, Case 2 should have adapted the 2009 BD&C EAc5 language (also used for NC 2.2). It cites IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. Vol. III with specific guidance for the available options (Option C makes little sense for CI) and dispenses with the arguably flawed "old" list of prescriptive requirements. Instead, Vol. III inherently provides the necessary flexibility and discretion to deal with projects, including CI, on an individual basis.

The USGBC is aware of these problems and this posting will prompt me to follow up to see if any resolution has been reached regarding a correction. In terms of immediate advice, I would suggest following the 2009 BD&C EAc5 language (using IPMVP Vol. III) and adapting it accordingly. I can also confirm that the CI RG requirement for IPMVP compliance for Case 1 is also an error.

Has there been any more movement by USGBC to clarify the language?

I know that this is something on the proverbial bike rack, but I am not aware of any more movement on it. Having said this, I also know that the USGBC staff has its hands full with LEED 2012 as well as other initiatives/issues. Perhaps a few communications with the USGBC on this matter would help to move it up the priority scale.

Searching through the internet, I found this document of the minute of a EA Technical Advisory Group meeting that took place on April 7 2011.
In point 4, the TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. "discussed a proposed addendum to LEED 2009 for CI EAc3 Case 2. Language in this version regarding submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system). was not carried properly from CIv2.2, and the TAG agreed that alignment with 2009 BD&C EAc5 was necessary. A motion to approve an addendum for EAc3 clarifying the requirements was made by Nathan Gauthier and seconded by Gord Shymko. Motion approved by consent."

So it looks like an addenda was approved but it never came out. DO you think this can be considered as precedent setting?

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9386

I received the following comment from Gord via email":

As you will note, I was part of that TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. discussion. It occurred just before the end of my term with the EA TAG. Unfortunately the purview of the TAG is limited. While the motion supports amending/correcting the language, there are other hurdles and committees that the change must clear. In this regard while the TAG discussion is significant, it by no means makes the change "official".

Thanks for the advice Tristan and Gordon. I already wrote to the USGBC regarding this matter, insisting on the need to make an addendum about in this item. My arguments were the TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. meeting's suggestion and the fact that one of the topics that are more important now a days is performance measuring. Therefore it's necessary to be clear in the credits regarding this topic.

I hope others will follow Gordon's advice as well.

Luis,

If you want to make this an official part of LEED you might consider submitting a LEED Interpretation.

Hi everyone;
Some days ago, USGBC answered my inquiry regarding Case 2, and the TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. suggestion.

Here is their answer:
"Dear Luis Miguel,

Thank you for your inquiry.

We are currently working on revised language for this credit. Changes will be published in the April 1st release.

Thank you for your patience."

So, as you can see we need to wait till April 1st to find out what will happen with this credit.

Dave - good question. It looks like you've caught one of the areas where LEED 2009 has subtly changed from older versions of LEED.

Under LEED-CI v2.0 there was no requirement for a plan if your space was less than 75% of the building area. But under LEED CI 2009, the requirement is clearly there, right in the credit language. To make things more confusing, the reference guide goes on to describe what is required, but for Case 1, makes no further mention of a plan. But it's there in the credit template as well.

I have to admit the requirement came as a surprise to me. I'm wondering where the new requirement came from, and if it was really the intention of the USGBC to get M&V plans for small CI projects. I am checking with a few sources, to see if I can get some insight. As soon as I know more, I'll post it here.

I have confirmed with USGBC staff that requirement for an M&V plan under Case 1 is an error in the reference guide. If you download the rating system itself, you'll see that the language is no longer in the requirements. So no M&V plan needed under Case 1.

LEED Online will be updated eventually. In the meantime, you should just "check the box" so that you can submit.

Thanks so much for the clarification, Christopher.

Would this also hold true for LEED-CS EA 5.2: M&V Tenant SubmeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system).?
I have a large 12 storey medical office building project where there will never be a tenant larger than 75% of the space. We are trying for LEED-CS which has under the requirements: "Develop a tenant measurement and verification plan that documents and advises future tenants of this opportunity [to meet the LEED-CI EA Credit 3] and the means of achievement." But which M&V plan do we use, when none will be required to meet the CI credit?

This is another subtle, but confusing choice of language. What is required for CS EA 5.2 is not really an M&V "plan" in the way that it is used in other M&V credits, but rather a guidance document that advises the tenants of the metering opportunity, how it works, how to connect, etc. The requirement for corrective directives/action is also dubious given the context. I would suggest just ignoring it.