Despite aiming high during design, LEED-certified buildings don’t always perform as well as expected. A measurement and verification (M&V) program can make building operators aware of performance issues, and can locate the source of problems or identify poor design assumptions while providing a better overall sense of how the building’s systems are functioning.
While M&V can be applied to a variety of metrics, including water use and indoor environmental quality, EAc5.1 focuses only on energy performance. To earn it, you’ll need to develop an M&V plan, install devices to support the plan, and provide guidelines for tenants to carry out 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)..
Beyond your M&V plan, projects can also receive one point under this credit just by agreeing to share utility information through Energy Star as part of MPR6.
For EAc5.1 you must write and M&V plan and actually measure the base building’s electrical energy use. This credit is generally best for buildings where the owner will be occupying space in the core-and -shell building and can take advantage of energy savings. The HVAC system will be a big driver on whether or not to pursue this credit. If your building has a central HVAC then there is a lot of equipment to monitor and therefore lots of potential savings. If you have mostly distributed HVAC (like split systems) then the savings are less obvious.
Whereas, EAc5.2 you will only need to write an M&V plan for tenants to use and set up infrastructure, but don’t actually have to do any measurements ideal if your project will have LEED-CI tenants or if tenants plan to make energy improvements. Your project can attempt one or both. Some M&V providers and owners tend to think EAc5.2 is easier because the tenant is responsible for the task of actual monitoring.
The M&V process includes writing a plan and incorporating a metering or building management system to compare your project’s actual performance against design predictions. Determining which systems should be monitored is building-specific rather than prescribed by the credit requirements.
The systems that are monitored depend on the scope of the Core and Shell building, mechanical system design, and installed equipment. In general, you are expected to monitor energy from all systems or components that get the data points for end uses identified in the energy model, or from all energy-saving equipment.
Your M&V program will keep the owner or tenant informed of energy use over the course of project occupancy, help reduce energy costs, assist with commissioning and, over time, document and improve energy conservation measures (ECMs).
The cost of an M&V program varies from one project to the next. Added costs come from designing and installing specific monitoring systems, multiple meters, additional wiring, and the extra man-hours involved. The cost is typically higher in larger and more complex (multi-use) buildings; however, the cost premium will be lower if your project already plans to include a building management system (BMS) or submeters to record energy usage data. Another benefit of M&V in a core and shell building is the attraction and retention of tenants. So, this credit is not just about energy savings.
If your building is small, with minimum uses, and needs only a few meters to meet the credit, your M&V program will be more affordable. If your project involves complex mechanical and electrical systems in a large building without a BMS, you may find this credit incredibly expensive—potentially cost-prohibitive.
To make the upfront investment worthwhile, the owner must be committed to developing and implementing an M&V program, analyzing and understanding the building’s performance, and acting on the results. Typically, the cost premium of M&V installation and operation can be offset by long-term energy savings, though this is highly dependent on the building type as well as the owner’s willingness to endorse the needed changes and upgrades.
The “M&V provider” takes responsibility for developing the plan. This role can be filled by the commissioning agent, energy modeler, mechanical engineer, project engineer, or a facilities manager.
The industry standard for M&V, both in the U.S. and internationally, is the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (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.), owned by the nonprofit Efficiency Valuation Organization. LEED has singled out Volume III of the IPMVP guidance as the basis of its requirements. Several organizations have published M&V guidelines based on IPMVP. Among them are ASHRAE, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), and some utilities and states that fund energy-efficiency projects. Some organizations with M&V standards offer guidance in writing M&V plans, including sample language.
Option 2 is only appropriate for measures that are simple to analyze and that have few or no interaction with other building systems. For most new buildings and gut rehabs, there will be significant interaction between systems (such as lighting and HVAC) and Option 1 (simulation) will be the best option.
For EAc5.1, there are no specific requirements. In your M&V plan, you will identify the uses you will submeter or monitor in order to confirm your energy savings. If you are pursuing Option 2 (Energy Conservation Measure Isolation), it may make sense to directly submeter the equipment in question. For the related tenant M&V credit, EAc5.2, tenant spaces must submetered or independently metered by the electric utility.
Discuss as a team whether M&V will contribute to your project’s goals for energy reduction and system monitoring. Consider your project’s size, its complexity, your tenants’ needs, and whether or not to run a whole-building energy model. Also think about how the building will be operated. If the M&V program is not likely to be fully utilized by the owner, it may not be an appropriate investment.
Talk to the facility operations staff about the financial benefits and operational requirements of the M&V plan. Any energy savings achieved through M&V will depend on their participation.
Introduce the M&V program into the design early in the process, because it can affect the design of the mechanical and electrical systems as well as the BMS. There is also inherent value in having the design teams think about how the building will be operated.
Determine whether attempting EAc5.1, EAc5.2, or both is best for your project. Achieving both will earn your project a total of six points. You can attempt one or both—neither is dependent on the other.
Consider incorporating a building management system (BMS) into the building. A BMS will streamline implementation of this credit, but might not be appropriate or affordable for small projects. A BMS allows you to collect data over time, to identify trends, and to diagnose issues that would not be apparent from simply reviewing whole building energy data. A meter simply tells you there is a problem where as a BMS can tell you why.
Consider the impact of an M&V program on mechanical system design requirements. Keep in mind whether or not your mechanical system is capable of providing the necessary outputs for the BMS or metering system. The energy usage outputs are typically listed as kW, BTU, or therms over a given period of time. An automated record on a BMS or a metered reading on the equipment may be manually carried out at regular intervals. The specifics of the output metric and duration need to be determined in your M&V program and depend on the systems installed.
The “M&V provider” develops the M&V plan. This role can be filled by the commissioning agent, energy modeler, mechanical engineer, project engineer, or a facilities manager.
Contract with the M&V provider early in the process so that system components and recommendations can be implemented seamlessly rather than becoming add-ons. Trying to implement an M&V plan later in the process can lead to increased cost for extra wiring, output configuration, and monitoring equipment.
EAc5.1 for LEED-CS buildings is similar to the requirements for LEED-NC EAc5, but with an additional emphasis on including information on tenant sub-metering in the M&V plan. However, your project is not required to separately meter each tenant space for EAc5.1. The focus of your M&V plan should be on electricity-using systems in the core-and-shell base building.
Discuss the potential scope of your M&V plan. Will you meter natural gas, water consumption, or other variables? You will be required to meter all electricity-using systems, but should also consider expanding the scope to include natural gas too. Some projects find it helpful to incorporate water meters in an effort to verify water-reduction goals.
EAc5.1 focuses on electricity-using systems and projects that do not use electrical systems are not eligible for this credit.
Determine whether IPMVP Option B or Option D is most appropriate for your project design:
More tips on Option B versus Option D are below, at the end of Schematic Design.
Design systems to collect data to support calculations (Option B) or calibration of simulations (Option D) from a combination of meters and sensors. These can be included in a building automation system or through temporary installation of additional sensors and data loggers as needed.
Energy savings are determined by comparing actual metered, or measured, energy use to the projected energy use of a baseline building under similar operating conditions.
Discuss which energy-using systems your M&V plan may cover and how those systems or components can be measured.
The M&V program must monitor the energy use of all systems installed during Core-and-Shell work and provide the infrastructure for tenant metering, though it does not need to individually measure tenant spaces.
Only electricity is required to be submetered in Core-and-Shell projects. Electricity for lighting, plug loads, and HVAC can be metered together, but this may not always be possible due to system constraints, unknown lighting or plug loads, or your project scope. Consider monitoring gas as well; this will give you a better idea of your building’s total energy use.
Some utility districts prohibit tenant submetering and charging by a third-party provider, so be sure to double check this if you plan to separately submeter tenant spaces. If your local utility does not allow third-party submetering, see if it will install separate meters for the tenants.
Some utility companies provide incentives or rebates for submetering and BMS programs. For example, cities have provided $2,000 per meter for advanced master-meter installation in affordable housing and $1,500 per meter in market-rate housing. Check with your local utility to find out about available rebates.
The cost of M&V can vary significantly from one project to another. You’ll need to get project-specific bids based on your individual design needs. Accuracy and cost of M&V plans are influenced by the following:
The highest return on investment is provided by an M&V program that is implemented throughout the life of the building.
Isolating and metering different ECMs, such as HVAC systems or lighting, can provide useful information on energy consumption and provide insights about energy reduction measures.
The cost implications for ECM isolation depend on how many meters are installed and the complexity of the systems being monitored. If systems are easily isolated and don’t require many meters, this credit can be relatively inexpensive to achieve, and Option B is more cost-effective than Option D. (See the appendix in ASHRAE Guideline 14-2004, for estimating the cost of meters.)
Option D is the best choice for projects with highly efficient building envelopes, and efficient mechanical and electrical systems, where energy savings measures will overlap.
Permanent submetering or a BMS is not necessary—project teams can instead choose a combination of utility analysis, spot-metering, and permanent metering. However, these other methods do not provide the detailed information that a BMS can, and may not help projects determine energy problems or understand actual energy use. An M&V plan without a BMS is rare in large, new-construction projects. Smaller, single-occupancy buildings may find that packaged energy monitors or monthly utility bills can provide helpful feedback without investment in a costly BMS.
Most M&V programs submeter individual systems such as lighting, heating, and cooling. Plug loads are not always submetered individually—it is easiest to individually submeter larger items and then subtract total plug load data from total building usage to get an estimated plug load.
An M&V program generally includes sensors—which measure the watts of energy draw, temperature, length of time, and other variables—and a central processor, which stores the collected information and helps building managers interpret it. Building automation systems typically include the central processor needed for M&V, but not all of the sensors or the additional programming to tally energy use and track patterns. Adding these pieces to a building automation system, however, is relatively easy.
Submetering different use areas in mixed-use buildings, such as office and laboratory spaces, can offer insight into what energy reduction measures are most appropriate for each space type.
The cost implications of this credit can vary and depend on the complexity of the meters and the submetering system, the cost of energy modeling and calibration, the cost of commissioning M&V components, and the size and complexity of the building. (See Resources for more information.)
M&V retrofits typically average no more than 5% of the total project cost, studies show.
For new construction, the combined cost of the installed equipment and the first year of monitoring is generally less than 1% of the total project cost for buildings larger than 150,000 ft2—and less than 1.5% for smaller buildings, according to studies.
The cost to create an M&V program for Option D, according to IPMVP, is influenced by the following:
Determine the extent of the M&V program based on the owner’s goals, the project type and function, and IPMVP requirements. M&V goals can be included in the Owner’s Project Requirements and Basis of Design documents for the commissioning credits EAp1 and EAc3.
The M&V provider reviews the project design to determine which systems and equipment will be metered, and also determines how many meters will be required. See the guide to commonly metered items in the Documentation Toolkit.
The M&V provider works with the mechanical engineer to verify that all systems are designed to allow metering and submetering. Meters and energy systems must be capable of interfacing with the selected BMS or metering system.
The mechanical engineer designs and specifies the appropriate submetering devices, controls, and M&V system. The M&V provider verifies that the M&V program and systems are capable of providing the information required for the credit.
Permanent installation of water meters allows easier monitoring of water consumption and greater savings. Although this is not required for LEED, water metering for graywater and rainwater systems is generally included in M&V plans, and monitoring general water use is also worthwhile to verify projected savings.
Start early—adding an M&V program after mechanical and electrical systems have been designed may be cost-prohibitive due to redesign costs.
The M&V provider determines the ECMs that need isolation and verifies that these systems do not interact with any other ECMs.
The M&V provider works with the owner and the mechanical engineer to determine the best solution for metering or submetering ECMs.
The M&V provider works with the owner to determine the best system for monitoring actual energy use.
Run a preliminary energy model. If an energy model is being developed for EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance, the model can be used as the energy-use baseline for your M&V plan. Or, a new model may be run to determine the baseline energy use. The actual energy use will be compared to this baseline.
If applicable, the BMS should be set up to collect data that allows fair comparison between actual and predicted energy use. For example, since weather patterns are factored into the energy model, the BMS should capture these along with other parameters, such as operating schedule, occupancy density, space use, and system settings.
To achieve this credit under Option D, the M&V program must be able to identify specific building performance issues. A BMS, or submetering, can build this capacity into your system.
Whole-building calibration simulation requires information about the instruments that enable the project to monitor the categories listed in the IPMVP.
The determination of systems to be monitored is building-specific rather than prescribed by the credit requirements.
The M&V provider develops the M&V plan. If possible, involve the facility’s operational staff in writing the plan, which must define the following:
Coordinate with your mechanical and electrical engineers to verify that the control devices will be able to provide the information needed for credit compliance.
The owner’s goals and IPMVP guidelines should drive the M&V plan, which should specify the systems to be submetered, those to be spot-metered, and how this will be accomplished. The plan also explains the infrastructure design, locations of meters and meter specifications, the one-line electrical schematics identifying end-use circuits, and the details of tenant submetering. However, tenant submetering is not actually required for this credit—only for EAc5.2: Measurement and Verification—Tenant Submetering.
Your plan should establish who is responsible for managing the process during operations and how long the monitoring will continue.
Through a narrative report, the M&V program provider demonstrates that the M&V program will verify actual energy use. For energy systems not addressed in the M&V plan, you’ll need to provide a detailed reason for its exclusion in the narrative.
The industry standard for M&V plans, both in the U.S. and internationally, is the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), owned by the nonprofit Efficiency Valuation Organization. LEED has singled out Volume III of the IPMVP guidance as the basis of its requirements, and several organizations have published M&V guidelines based on IPMVP. Among them are the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP); and some utilities and states that fund energy-efficiency projects. Some organizations with M&V standards offer guidance in writing M&V plans, including sample language.
Determine the baseline energy use for ECMs.
Projected baseline energy use can be determined using energy efficiency standards or guidelines.
Run a final energy model that reflects all of the as-designed, energy-efficiency measures.
Projected baseline energy use is calculated by an energy model during the design phase. All ECMs are removed from the model, and this energy data becomes the baseline to determine energy savings when compared to actual energy use. According to Option D of IPMVP III, the model must be calibrated so that it is ready to be used after one year of data collection.
It is easiest to calibrate the as-built energy simulation software if submetering devices correlate with the breakdown of the energy usage in the energy model.
When applicable, the M&V plan should specify submetering sensor locations. Define the specific sensors, giving their location and sampling rates. In the plan, define the required energy model output and how measured data will be compared to the energy model. Also define how loads are arranged and grouped in electric panels. Mixing power, lighting, and HVAC equipment loads within individual panels is not recommended.
Install and commission the M&V submetering devices, or BMS, to verify functional accuracy.
Installation of the M&V system should be fairly straightforward. Depending on the system and the experience of the subcontractors, however, specialized contractors may be needed. (See Resources for information on qualified practitioners.)
Verify that the whole-building simulation model matches the as-built design.
Meters and submeters should be recalibrated periodically according to manufacturers’ recommendations.
Encourage your operations team to use data generated by the M&V program to run the building at optimal efficiency.
The payback period for M&V programs depends on the initial cost of additional meters and whether the program has identified inefficiencies that wouldn’t have been found otherwise. Some fixes may be substantial and will pay for the metering system. After the BMS or metering system has been installed, the true return depends on the commitment of the owner and operational staff. Because M&V systems monitor actual building operation over time, M&V procedures can lead to valuable operational savings by uncovering building system design, installation, and control issues not caught during the commissioning process.
M&V programs require continuous energy use and staff attention. One of the larger costs associated with this credit is the time needed by staff to read, interpret, and act on feedback provided by an M&V program that needs manual or spot readings. Although more expensive to install, an integrated, computerized BMS that assists in day-to-day management can financially benefit a complex building or one with multi-tenant spaces.
The M&V plan should be implemented for at least the first year of building operations.
Ensure that appropriate personnel are trained to optimize the system to its greatest potential.
Track and archive trending data with utility metering and energy submetering systems required by the M&V plan.
Provide a yearly summary report that identifies both energy performance issues and corrective actions.
Record any post-construction upgrades or changes to operations and maintenance in order to best understand post-construction energy use.
To account for operational changes, a 5%–10% discrepancy—between baseline and post-construction energy use—may be acceptable.
The facilities manager or M&V provider compares baseline energy use of the ECMs to post-construction energy use.
The ECM usage can be tracked on a simple spreadsheet; complicated calculations or modeling is not required.
Set up the BMS to provide monthly reports as required by the M&V plan, if applicable.
Include actual occupancy and weather data when calibrating the energy simulation model after the building’s first-year energy usage data becomes available. The energy modeler performs the calibrated simulation with the assistance of the M&V provider.
The calibrated energy simulation gives the owner and facility operator a true picture of savings from the ECMs instead of the predicted savings from the energy model developed during design. A simulation model developed during design makes a lot of assumptions about occupancy patterns, set points, and weather. A calibrated energy model replaces those assumptions with real data while accommodating unforeseen program changes. If the actual results are 10% greater than the predicted ones, compare the differences between the assumptions and the actual settings. Calibration is a great learning opportunity for the modeler to verify those assumptions with actual data. After the first year, you do not need to recalibrate the model; instead, use utility bills to compare against energy usage from previous years.
Energy savings is verified by either comparing the calibrated, as-built model to the calibrated, baseline model—or by comparing calibrated, baseline energy use to actual metered energy use.
Calibration of the energy model adds a small amount on top of the cost of the baseline, as-built, energy model.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development
To provide for the ongoing accountability of building energy consumption over time.
Develop and implement a measurement and verification (M&V) plan consistent with Option D: Calibrated Simulation (Savings Estimation Method 2) as specified by the International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (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.), Volume III: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy Savings in New Construction, April 2003.
The documentation must include the following:
Develop a and implement a measurement and verification (M&V) plan consistent with Option B: Energy Conservation Measure Isolation, as specified by the International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (IPMVP), Volume III: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy Savings in New Construction, April 2003.
Meet MPR 6 through compliance Option 1: Energy and Water Data Release Form. Projects must register an account in ENERGY STAR’s Portfolio Manager tool and share the project file with the USGBC master account.
Develop an M&V plan to evaluate building and/or energy system performance. Characterize the building and/or energy systems through energy simulation or engineering analysis. Install the necessary metering equipment to measure energy use. Track performance by comparing predicted performance to actual performance, broken down by component or system as appropriate. Evaluate energy efficiency by comparing actual performance to baseline performance.
While the 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. describes specific actions for verifying savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs) and strategies, this LEED credit expands upon typical IPMVP M&V objectives. M&V activities should not necessarily be confined to energy systems where ECMs or energy conservation strategies have been implemented. The IPMVP provides guidance on M&V strategies and their appropriate applications for various situations. These strategies should be used in conjunction with monitoring and trend logging of significant energy systems to provide for the ongoing accountability of building energy performance.
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. is the standard upon which the LEED M&V requirements are based. Use these documents should be used in designing the M&V system and plan.
ASHRAE provides technical guidelines for designing an M&V plan. This document can assist project teams in designing and implementing the M&V systems and plan.
These M&V guidelines are written for federal buildings but could be helpful for many projects.
This website provides a list of resources to help teams implement an M&V program.
This article discusses the usefulness of M&V, including examples of problems that M&V systems have been able to identify.
Chapter 27 covers Measurement and Verification of Energy Savings and has some very useful information from the history of M&V, including various methods and equipment.
This blog includes regular articles from EVO insiders (and outsiders who meet our editorial guidelines) to inspire discussion on M&V topics.
The Energy Valuation Organization, in conjunction with the Association of Energy Engineers, offers an M&V professional certification program. The Association of Energy Engineers holds training seminars for those preparing to take the certification exam and anyone else interested in learning the fundamentals of M&V and working with 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..
USGBC’s Building Performance Partnership (BPP) engages commercial and residential LEED building owners and managers in an effort to optimize the performance of buildings through data collection, analysis and action. This partnership among USGBC and the thousands of LEED project owners will result in the population of a comprehensive green building performance database, enable standardization of reporting metrics and analytics, and establish new performance benchmarks. USGBC’s BPP participants are eligible for annual performance reports, report cards and real-time data interfaces to aid in their building performance goals. Together, USGBC and BPP participants will transform the way the world views building operations.
The Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan template shown here is based on Option D: Calibrated Simulation.
Sample LEED Online forms for all rating systems and versions are available on the USGBC website.
Documentation for this credit can be part of a Design Phase submittal.
This Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan sample follows Option D: Calibrated Simulation.
Im working on a mixed use development that consists of office space and retail units. The retail units will be leased as "grey box" therefore we do not provide energy meters however we will be metering the energy end uses from the offices. The fact that we are not providing meters for the speculative retail units does this impact in terms of going for this credit. Is there any options available for parts of a building / development where energy end use metering are not provided ?
Just adding to the above we are assuming basline systems for all retail units - therefore not claiming any savings. Does this make any difference in terms of the required metering infrastructure.
The engineer on my project is asking what exactly needs to be submetered and I'm having difficulty answering just because I'm not as familiar with the credit details. They plan to monitor vertical conveyance, HVAC, receptacle loads, and lighting loads. Does emergency power need to be monitored? I'm thinking no just because it is rarely in use. Any other clear items I am missing? We don't want to over-meter anything either for obvious cost reasons. Thanks for your help.
That is the wrong question.
The 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., and therefore LEED, does not require specific submeters. What is required is that you gather sufficient information post-occupancy to enable you to calibrate the energy model to a particular level of accuracy. This can be accomplished many differnt ways and will vary depending on the nature of the project. So the question should be what information do I need to calibrate my energy model? Then how can I do that in the most cost-effective manner?
I can't tell if you are gathering enough information or not as I would need to be familiar with the project and its energy model. Emergency power does not need to be metered.
What is most important with this credit is that you demonstrate that you understand the concepts and ideas embedded within the IPMVP.
Thank you, this helps - why does the LEED language above say all electricity-using systems need to be metered? That's confusing. Did some more research though and will focus on the efficiencies claimed in the energy model and monitoring those.
I don't see where it says that.
In the checklist tab above under pre-design it says "Discuss the potential scope of your M&V plan. Will you meter natural gas, water consumption, or other variables? You will be required to meter all electricity-using systems, but should also consider expanding the scope to include natural gas too. Some projects find it helpful to incorporate water meters in an effort to verify water-reduction goals." and a couple other places within the Checklist tab.
That statement is certainly unclear. It says meter, not sub-meter, but then refers to the systems which implies sub-meters.
To be clear you are not required to meter or sub-meter anything for EAc5.1. However, most projects will find that some level of metering and sub-metering will be easier and less expensive than gathering the data needed to calibrate the model through other means.
What if the case is that the actual total energy use diverted only around 1 to 3 percent of the predicted energy during design?
Is a calibrated energy simulation model still need by LEED and can the submission summarise and compare between actual and predicted..tq and hope for reply soon
Sorry but I don't understand the first question.
You can't just compare the actual energy use to the modeled energy use. You must calibrate the model under Option D.
We are working in a project that will have a single tenant occupying the whole building. He will be responsible to pay the 100% of energy bills of the building.
I assume we can comply with EAc5.2 if we elaborate a tenant M&V plan but we cannot comply with EAc5.1 option 1 or 2, that's right?
Can we still comply with option 3 sharing energy bills of the whole building with USGBC?
You certainly could earn EAc5.1. In fact it is far easier to do so with a single tenant than with multiple tenants.
You can also more easily comply with Option 3 as well.
Does Service hot water need to be sub-metered to satisfy this credit ? If not will it make the energy model more difficult to calibrate.
Nothing needs to be submetered.
Whether you submeter it or gather the operational data through other means depends on several factors including the significance of the hot water energy use, whether it is gas or electric, what other loads use the same fuel source, etc.
As I understand having read user comments, although the reference guide emphasizes that electricity is to be measured, other energy sources should also be measured just like M&V for new construction. Please confirm my understanding.
In addition, LEED Online for this credit in C&S only allows to write a detailed narrative representing the plan while for NC it allows you to upload the plan along with any supporting drawings/documents (such as single line diagrams showing meters). How can we upload supporting documents/drawings for this credit? And should the narrative be the same as the plan for NC projects?
Yes all fuel sources should be measured.
I think you can upload the plan and supporting documents for CS projects in LEED Online.
The M&V Plan for CS projects should be similar to NC projects. Essentially you are attempting to verify the energy savings you have predicted. Verification is against the actual energy bills. So the kind of measurement you employ to gather data could vary depending on how the savings are being generated.
Thanks Marcus, Happy new year.
I checked LEED Online as it was offline for a week or so. The form to be filled doesn't contain an upload button, only a narrative to be written. However, in the credit library there are sample forms for the same credit that have the upload button in addition to boxes to check for items included in the plan.
Even if the form does not have an upload button you can upload files. Click on the Uploads button associated with the credit. If there is no way to add a file go back into the form and click the box toward the end of the form for special circumstances and type "see uploaded file" or something in the box. Then go back to uploads associated with the credit and add the file.
Hello, I have been following the leeduser site and still trying to understand EAc5.1 and EAc5.2. I have been using them differently due to not having a clear explanation of the credits at usgbc. The typical projects that the credits will apply to are 10 to 12 story new office buildings where the owner finishes the core of each floor with the expectation that the future tenants will occupy partially of fully each floor space. There are two questions I would like you to answer if possible.
EA5.2 (3 points) future tenant
As I understand it, we only need to show the infrastructure so future tenants can sub-meter their space. By saying infrastructure I mean, to show on our design riser conduit trough electrical closets to wherever the building software will collect all the tenant sub-meter information, to show location of future tenant sub-meters typically in each electrical closet and (2)junction boxes in each electric closet for cable splicing and tenant sub-metering.
1. Is the following good enough for the three points needed? If not please explain what will be needed.
Our approach to EAc5.2 is that future tenant(s) load, future meters or future C/Ts tied to BAS(Building Automation System) were to have the capability to capture and monitor future tenant spaceTenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space. loads as follows per tenant floor:
- tenant’s future lighting
- tenant’s future HVAC
- tenants plug loads
EA5.1 (3 points) base
For this credit there are two methods that I have been using and needed your help on. The 1st method is expensive for the owner and the 2nd seems too simple but doable.
For base buildingThe base building includes elements such as the structure, envelope, and building-level mechanical systems, such as central HVAC, etc. and Measurement and Verification purposes the meters are separated into:
a. (1) for BB elevators
b. (as needed) BB Exterior lighting (separate ones for different voltages 120V and 277V)
c. (as needed) BB Parking garage lighting (separate ones for different voltages 120V and 277V)
d. (as needed) BB Domestic Water Heaters
e. (as needed) BB Non-minimum ventilation parking garage fans (separate ones for different voltages 120V and 277V)
For base building core loads the meters were separated for each floor:
a. (1) meter for BB core lighting on all floors
b. (1) meter for BB core mechanical loads on all floors
c. (1) meter for BB core plug loads on all floors
d. (1) meter for BB core water heater on all floors
The Plan above describes how these loads will be separately measured which should meet the intend of this credit.
The 2nd method:
Is to provide CT meter(s) that can be included in each switchboard, can measure the building’s total house loads and can be tied to BAS. This can measured and verified periodically to see how the building behaves during different seasons. The building will try to improve efficiency by making adjustments at different times on lighting, mechanical, plug loads and water heater loads and then measure and verify via meters in order to compare the results.
2. Is the 2nd method good enough for the three points needed? If not please explain what will be needed.
I would appreciate your response to these 2 credits as it will help us make better recommendation to our clients.
5.2 - you need the infrastructure and a Plan. The Plan contents are spelled out in the Reference Guide.
5.1 - There is rarely any value in pursuing this credit for most CS projects. It is usually just point hunting. That said, the first method has the potential to work, the second does not. You need to gather enough data to allow you to calibrate the energy model which is then used to verify energy savings. You need to write a M&V Plan in compliance with the 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.. Explaining how to do that here would require a very lengthy explanation.
Our project is a three story Professional Office Building addition to an adjacent hospital. The central plant [also adjacent to our project] will be providing hot water, steam, and chilled water for domestic hot water and space conditioning. The tenant spaces have already been determined and no tenant will occupy more than 75% of the CS space area.
I'm admittedly a little confused by the reference guide relative to the CS versus NC M&V requirements. I'm reading the LEED reference guide, the comments here, and the LEEDuser credit checklist and come across the following conclusion: only electricity end uses need be submetered to meet the CS EAc5.1 credit requirements. Gas and water would be best practices but not required by this credit. Can someone please confirm that is a correct understanding?
I agree that the Reference Guide is a bit confusing.
I don't think that your conclusion is correct. If the CS portion of the project includes gas space heating for example, it must be in your M&V Plan. Your Plan must address everything in the CS scope of work, especially anything for which energy savings are being claimed.
To be clear, the 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. does not require anything to be submetered. How you gather the data you need to calibrate the energy model is up to your Plan.
I appreciate your perspective Marcus, but I struggle to see how it is substantiated [no offense] -- I'm just tying to get to the bottom of this.
From LEEDuser's checklist page [emphasis added]:
"Discuss the potential scope of your M&V plan. __Will__ you meter natural gas, water consumption, or other variables? You will be __required__ to meter all electricity-using systems, but __should__ also __consider__ expanding the scope to include natural gas too. Some projects find it helpful to incorporate water meters in an effort to verify water-reduction goals."
The "will" and "consider" language tells me that electricity-using systems are required but gas and water are optional. Also on the LEEDuser’s checklist page:
“EAc5.1 focuses on electricity-using systems and projects that do not use electrical systems are not eligible for this credit.”
This says nothing of gas or water. Additionally, in the Reference Guide, page 321, is says [emphasis added]:
“The credit focuses on the energy–using systems (and primarily the __electricity-using__ systems) … to achieve this credit, the __electricity-using__ systems in the core and shell building should be addressed in the M&V plan … __Consider__ measuring other energy use (i.e. natural gas)…”
The nuance is subtle, "require" electricity-using systems, "consider" other energy uses. I can only read this one way: electricity-using systems are the only systems required to be included in the M&V plan.
What am I missing?
The point of contention is that the contractor has associated $60k to meter the steam and the chilled / heated water coming from a central plant to be used for domestic hot water and space conditioning and I am struggling with how to substantiate the requirement for these meters, especially considering the unique lease agreement between our client and the end user of the space. I was aligned with your thinking in the beginning of the project [which is why we priced the additional meters], but now that I looked into, I'm questioning my original stance, hence the question.
Sounds like you had a fundamental understanding of the referenced standard, the 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., but allowed the Reference Guide language to confuse you. The purpose of the IPMVP is to verify predicted energy savings. So if you are claiming savings your M&V Plan should be structured to verify those savings.
There is no definitive language in the Reference Guide that requires anything. "Primarily" is a qualifier and very clearly implies "primarily, but not exclusively". "Consider" can also mean "consider when appropriate". We clearly agree that the language is confusing and unclear in terms of definitive requirements. When that happens I rely on my understanding of the fundamentals and not on the potential interpretation of LEED language.
I have implemented many M&V Plans under Option D. The more you try to exclude from the M&V scope, the harder it will be to calibrate your model depending upon 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).. I also have been a LEED Reviewer for this credit for over ten years now so I am sharing how I review it.
Will you be claiming any energy savings under EAp2 related to the steam or chilled heated water for DHWDomestic hot water (DHW) is water used for food preparation, cleaning and sanitation and personal hygiene, but not heating. or space conditioning? If the answer is yes then it needs to be addressed in the M&V Plan.
Received the following from a GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). staffer via "contact us:"
"Yes, sub-metering for fuels other than electricity is not required for the core and shell M&V."
Seems to clear things up so I just wanted to follow-up.
I'm sorry but interpretations on technical issues obtained that way are often wrong. The customer service folks only look at the surface of these kinds of issues. For this credit you are not required to 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. anything, even for NC projects.
Again you need to gather the data necessary to calibrate the model. If you don't include any measurement of this data in the M&V Plan you do not have a valid M&V Plan. How will you calibrate the energy model without it?
Your original issue was having to spend too much money to do this. You can't do it right without some type of measurement. So rather than rely on exceptions and interpretations in what appears to be a point hunting exercise the best solution is to not pursue this credit. Not all credits are applicable to every project. In the vast majority of projects the M&V does not really add any value. Are you chasing points or does the owner have a strong need to verify energy savings?
Fair enough. The vague language allows various interpretation which opens the door for disagreement. When I am dealing with sub-contractors who say what they've designed meets the requirements of the credit, and I then propose what I interpret as to be required and they then come back with a $60k add, we get to be where we are. I am attempting to establish what is _actually_ required so I can establish a foundation from which to pick my battles. Of course it is a point chasing exercise but for a whole host of non-ideal but real-life circumstances, that is what some of these certification exercises come down to, this project included. That said, we are also trying to parse out what the end-user actually wants [in this case, our "client" is actually the developer - not the end user of the space].
if our CS project goes with option 3, what space usage data will the mgmt company, who will only control the common areas (after building is complete) be required to share? in other words, there will be several tenant spaces that will be fit out by a future tenant (ownership not rental) and these spaces will have their own meter. what meter usage data will the mgmt company be responsible to report to satisfy this credit and MPR 6? only what they have control over or does the developer/owner need to include a requirement in the sales agreement that requires the future tenant to share their meter data for 5 years?
You would need to do M&V for the whole building so you will need to share the data from the whole building. The point of sharing the data is so USGBC can see how the whole building is performing and compare it to other whole buildings.
Thank you, Marcus.
I understand that, but i guess I am confused by what that means for CS projects and future tenants. How does the base buildingThe base building includes elements such as the structure, envelope, and building-level mechanical systems, such as central HVAC, etc. get the tenants to share that data when/if they install submeters? Is this something that has to be put in sales agreement? The base building scope sets up metering infrastructure so these future tenants to one day have the ability to meter their space. I understand this credit doesn't require them to actual install the meters.
According to other posts, its seems likely that if only electric utility meters where installed in the future tenants spaces, then it would meet credit requirements. So, would these meters need to feed a central system that the base building will report?
How you get the data from the tenants is pretty much up to the building owner. I do not think that a sales agreement is required. All energy sources would need to e reported for the entire building. By committing to MPR 6 the owner is committing to providing the data.
I am involved in a 5-storey building. The base buildingThe base building includes elements such as the structure, envelope, and building-level mechanical systems, such as central HVAC, etc. loads are mixed loads, i.e the loads include lighting and small power. The DB ( distribution board) has HVAC equipment loads ( air handling units) and also other loads like lifts. The contractor is not willing to provide separate meters for lighting and for plugged loads, and at the same time, the project the project team wants to get points for this. How should we go about. Some DBs contain pumps loads and also lighting loads together
You need to gather the data you need to calibrate the energy model. This usually requires the separation and measurement of each major energy end use. Having mixed boards makes this harder for 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).. You always have the option of figuring out how to gather the data you need by had with spot measurements and short term trending. The bigger the building the more labor intensive this becomes post-occupancy.
I can't tell you the best way to do this but having mixed boards you are already off to a bad start.
I am working on a large Core and Sheel project composed of office spaces and commercial centre (in France). The comercial centre is 5 stories high and occupied by one single tenant. The goal is to limit the number of sub-meters installed in the commercial centre.
The building has the following as energy supply:
1) District Heating System for Space Heating & Domestic Hot Water
2) District Cooling System for Air conditioning cooling
3) Electricity for external lighting, Cooling Electronic Fan coils, Cold storage plant, Fans / Ventilation (major), Lighting, Small Power, Outlets, elevators, escalators etc....
Can you confirm that we only need to meter the following three energy supplies for the credit EAct 5.1?
1) District Heating System for Space Heating & Domestic Hot Water
2) District Cooling System for Air conditioning cooling
3) Electricity - External lighting
For met it doesn't seem that difficult.
No meters at all are required by the 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..
You need to be able to gather the data needed to calibrate the energy model by energy end use on a monthly basis. This usually requires some level of electrical 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). or gathering other data you can use to derive energy use by end use. You can gather much of that information by hand too. The question is - does the owner want to pay for hardware or labor?
I received these technical advices but I don't really understand what they're asking me to add to the M&V Plan:
1. Specification of analytical techniques, algorithms, and/or software tools (name and version number), including any stipulated
parameters or operating conditions, and the range of conditions to which the techniques, algorithms, and software tools apply.
2.Final input/output files including important assumptions and any unusual modeling techniques employed during the development of
Is a C&S certification and the building is an office only type.
Thank you very much for your help!
1. How are you doing the calculations associated with the M&V, what software are you using? See the 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. Section 3.2 for more information on what should be in the Plan.
2. What models are you using to do the calibration? I assume it would be the same models you used for EAp2. Did you do any work arounds or use any atypical modeling procedures?
In case the system is yet designed, can CS project get the score in 5.1 and 5.2 by purely using tanant leasing agreement which has the M&V Plan as a reguirement to be responsible by tenants.
I would say it is not possible to do a reasonable M&V Plan.
is there any specification how should be consumption of base buildingThe base building includes elements such as the structure, envelope, and building-level mechanical systems, such as central HVAC, etc. divided and measured? For example in BreeamBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. there are specification like "fans with input above 10 kW measure separately". I tried to find some similar specification in LEED CS document as well as in 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. document and didn´t find anything.
Question: Is there this kind of specification in any document? If not what´s the standard?
Question I´m solving:
- Lifts (don´t measure X measure together X measure separately)
- Cooling units (measure whole plantroom X measure units togehter X measure units separately)
- Heat exchanger plantroom (measure whole plantroom or somehow divide this consumption into separate meters)
- HVAC units (together X separately)
...and many many others very similar.
Whats the key to design this metering strategy?
Is your project planning to attempt EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance using an energy model? If so, it is my understanding that the minimum requirements for metering for your M and V Plan would be the same types of energy consumption used in your energy model. For example, if your energy model and EAc1 submittal indicate that you use natural gas and electricity, then your M and V Plan should indicate that you are tracking the consumption of natural gas and electricity. The breakdown of what you are metering is completely up to the building owner. I personally feel as though M and V Plans are more successful in identifying which areas of consumption need improvements when more items are metered separately from other energy-consuming elements. For example, if you metered each HVAC unit separately, you might realize through the M and V process that one unit might need setpoint adjustments, whereas the other units are running as intended. If you didn't separately meter these units, you might find yourself recommissioning all of the HVAC units, which would be a much more expensive process in the long run. Hope this helps!
This particular standard sets out general guidelines and it is your job to interpret them and adapt them to your project. FEMP has published guidelines for Federal projects and they may help but I am not aware of any document specifying exactly what you need to do in your particular case.
It is up to you to determine the metering strategy that makes the most sense for your project. You will typically need to calibrate your energy model by energy end use on a monthly basis. Certainly any energy end use that consumes at least 5% of the total energy use should be measured. This does not mean you need to 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. everything. Some end uses can be derived, some can be estimated based on spot measurements or short term trending.
So look at your energy modeling results and figure out a plan to gather the data you would need to confirm your modeling inputs and calibrate the model. So from your examples above you appear to be focusing on the equipment rather than the energy end use. Rather than focus on the cooling units, heat exchanger plantroom and HVAC units, focus on the energy end use components like heating, cooling, fans, pumps, etc.
I am trying to think thru and identify the first cost difference of Option1(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. Option D) or Option 2 ( IPMVP Option B).
For a new office building, 100,000s.f. with a likely 100% tenant identified using a triple net lease and with all electric energy source.........it seems as if our team could choose either option. The identified tenant will be required to earn LEED CI.
True? Not? See any roadblocks to earning LEED for CI EAcr3?
My thinking: The credit language does not prohibit new construction from using Option 2(IPMVP Option B). Implementation of Option 2(IPMVP Option B) would seem less expensive(my gut reaction with no real world pricing) path than Option 1.
Your comments, thoughts and wisdom would be most welcomed.
Option B rarely applies to new construction projects in my experience. Your project would have to have almost no energy efficiency strategies that result in interactive effects (i.e. lighting affects heating and cooling) or develop a method for accounting for the interactive effects. So if your project has very limited energy saving measures that can be easily isolated from one another then Option B is possible.
I have seen many comments in this forum stating that plug loads should be metered seperately from lighting loads. I'm not sure if seperating these loads is actually necessary. We have a high rise building seeking C&S certification. The owner is installing all the lighting and outlets for tenant spaces. A number of busways run vertically through all the tenant occupied spacesOccupied Spaces are defined as enclosed spaces that can accommodate human activities. Occupied spaces are further classified as regularly occupied or non-regularly occupied spaces based on the duration of the occupancy, individual or multi-occupant based on the quantity of occupants, and densely or non-densely occupied spaces based upon the concentration of occupants in the space.. One Busway feeds lighting and pug loads on each of the floors. This busway is equiped with one electrical meter at the base of the building to measure the lighting and plug loads together. Our energy model seperates plug load energy use from lighting energy use. The ASHRAE baseline plug load use is identical to the proposed in our energy model. Therefore we have no ECMs associated with plug loads.
Question: Is there any problem with this metering setup for an M&V plan? Should we be asking Project teams to seprate plug load circuitry from lighting circuitry? Why?
You cannot properly calibrate the energy model without some mechanism to verify the accurate modeling of energy use by each end use. You do not necessarily have to 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. each one to do so. You can use spot measurements/short term trending to estimate one or the other of these uses and derive a separation through calculations based on data without having to separately submeter. The Plan should outline how you are going to separate these loads.
The fact that there are no ECMs associated with the plug loads does not matter. You still must claibrate the proposed energy model against the actual utility bills and verify that you modeling assumptions related to the plug loads and the lighting were correct or not. If not you change the model to reflect the data collected. This is a fundamental difference between the 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. applied to ECM project where there is before and after data versus new construction where there is no before data.
There is no problem with your metering set up (metering is not required at all by the IPMVP) as long as your Plan describes how these loads will be separately measured without 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).. However, in a large high rise it is often far cheaper to submeter as opposed to gathering the necessary data by hand post-occupancy.
I recieved a comment for a project of mine and dont really know what they want exactly. They need a "description of quality assurance procedures".
Quality assurance of what exactly?
Is it verification of metering accuracy or does it have to do with the actual equipment performance?
If it is related to equipment performance, what performance? (ex. efficiencies of pumps, chillers, and cooling towers?)
Must we have implemented algorithms in the BMS programming to calculate pump, chiller, and cooling tower efficiency in real time?
The quality of your calibration and verification. Think of it as quality control measures. How will you know that you produced accurate results?
Metering accuracy should be noted in the M&V Plan.
In order to properly calibrate the model you should also be checking the modeling assumption for equipment efficiency against what was installed. Depending on the situation you may need to develop a custom curve for the equipment if you suspect that the curve used in the model may not be accurate.
The essential issue is to know what the model needs to be calibrated within the level of accuracy cited in your Plan.
Our client’s CS-project has been denied EAc5.2 because we haven’t provided separate sub-metering of tenant lighting and plug loads. According to the review comment, separate sub-metering is required by LEED CI EAc3. Our project is Case 1 (less than 75 % of total area).
Have I missed something here? The CI EAc3 credit language doesn’t say anything about separate sub-metering for Case 1 projects. Also, the Green Building Design and Construction Reference Guide (2009 edition) says clearly that for CS-projects, “electricity used for lighting and plug loads and to run HVAC equipment may be measured on a single meter and reported together”.
Magnus, I agree with your interpretation of EAc5.2 -- we have received this credit recently on several buildings, all of which were 10-20 stories high, and where we said any future tenants would definitely occupy less than 75% of the total. You may want to clarify in your response whether future CI projects will find themselves in Case 1 or Case 2.
Table 2 under EAc3 in the ID+C Reference Guide certainly appears to require separate sub-meters for lighting and plug loads. This conflicts with the language in the BD+C version of the Reference Guide that you cite.
Sounds like you certainly have a case for questioning this review comment with GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). (go on their web site and challenge the accuracy of the review comment within the Contact Us area) assuming that this is the only issue for that credit.
Personally I think the point of both these credits, which should obviously be compatible, is to have meters to measure each fuel source used by the tenants (not each end use). CS is about the infrastructure that enables the metering and CI is about installing and using them.
My question is in regards to what need to be metered on the water side. Does the utility meter suffice or do I need to provide a meter for hot and cold water independently? Also, what about irrigation?
I have DHWDomestic hot water (DHW) is water used for food preparation, cleaning and sanitation and personal hygiene, but not heating. energy metered, but not water quantity.
I do not think you are required to meter water use for this credit.
If you do so I would think you would find more use in metering by end use.
i am participating in a CS project, the building is a comercial office building all the office space will be for tenants. We are planning to apply for the credit EAc5.2, but we have a doubt, it is possbile that during the 1 year post- occupancy period, the building will not be 100% in operation, so the implementation of the M&V Plan, could not be posible in this period, but the owner wants to have all the metering points. To comply with this credit we can develop the Plan, and wait until the 100% occupancy of the building?
Yes you can wait to install all of the meters.
We will have all the meters, but maybe the building will be not 100% occupied, so we could wait utill the 100% of occupancy, that's right?
No you earn the credit based on your plan, not its final implementation. So you do not have to wait for 100% occupancy.
Our Project is applying for M&V plan option D method 2, which let us calibrate the energy model with post construction measures. Because of the electrical circuits we can measure the total building consumption, and individually the HVAC and Elevators consumption, while the lighting, pumps, and common areas services consumption can be estimated by calculating the operation time controlled on each item.
Is it valid to calibrate the energy model with these methodology?
You can gather data on systems without 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). the energy use. Run time works for some constant loads. Spot measurements and short-term trending works too.
Fundamentally what information do you need to calibrate the energy model? This depends on the systems and the M&V budget.
From your list above I do not see fans, heating, cooling, service hot water, and plug loads that are typically found in many projects. Your methodology is contained in your M&V Plan so make sure you include information on the data you will gather for each energy end use and also related to other modeling parameters like schedules and weather.
"The M and V Plan omits the table or listing of the project’s energy end uses as required by the form."
However, the Plan we have submitted lists the following:
Locations and types of energy meters are shown on drawing 10610/35008. The following energy types are metered: Electricity
Is there any additional details that need to be listed regarding the energy end uses?
Energy end uses are not the same as energy sources.
Energy end uses are typically interior lighting, exterior lighting, space heating, space cooling, fans, pumps, service hot water, plug loads, elevators, etc.
You cannot properly calibrate an energy model using just metered energy sources.
We are working on a mall project going ahead with the LEED CS GOLD.We are currently on tender stage and the client has suddently come up with the LEED requirement. One of our competitors has also offered to provide the M&V service. The client wants us to provide a fee for this as well , but we reckon that this would not be a good idea to provide this service at this stage as we are very mature on the deisgn and almost going ahead with the tender. If we are suposed to go ahead with this credit, should we do it under Option B ? we do ahve BMS and sub metering and other ECMEnergy conservation measures are installations or modifications of equipment or systems intended to reduce energy use and costs. such as heat recovery and VFDA variable frequency drive (VFD) is a device for for controlling the speed of a motor by controlling the frequency of the electrical power supplied to it. VFDs may be used to improve the efficiency of mechanical systems as well as comfort, because they use only as much power as needed, and can be adjusted continuously.'s etc by default in the design. We need to finalize our fee regading this. Please advise .
Option B rarely works for new construction as there are usually several interactive energy efficiency measures like lighting and envelope improvements that are very difficult to isolate.
The total fee is typically a combination of writing the plan and implementing it post-occupancy. The biggest variable in time it takes to implement a particular plan depends on the data collection methods. If everything you need is submetered it usually takes far less time to gather the data, if not you will need to gather what you need by some means of direct measurement. Most project need to do a bit of both.
One of the projects I'm working on in Peru, is persuing the option 1 of MPR#6 (through Energy Star Portfolio Manager:ESPM) so we can get one EP point in EAc5.1. So, my questions are:
1. Just to confirm, does the ESPM for sharing the energy and water consumption data work for projects outside the US as well?
If so, when I'm asked for the ZIP code, should I write an arbitrary ZIP code of a US state with the same climate than Lima (2A) according to ASHRAE 90.1-2007?
2. Is there any other important issue about Portfolio Manager Energy Star for international LEED projects that I can take into consideration?
Thanks in advance.
I do not see any reason why you could not earn the point. I am not certain about using Portfolio Manger however since the data analysis within it does not apply internationally. I would think that the other options would work for sure.
Maybe someone at USGBC could respond?
Thanks for your response Marcus.
Actually, I agree with the idea that even though Energy Star uses only energy US data for their statistics, the intent of this credit can still be achieved.
I asked this question to USGBC as well, I'll post the answer once I get it from them.
If someone else is familiar with this issue, it will be appreciated to share it here.
I got this answer for my question from Energy Star Support.
1. According to LEED, it's possible to use the Portfolio Manager for international projects too; however when I'm asked for the ZIP code and State of the building, should I write an arbitrary ZIP code of a US state with the same climate than Lima (2A) according to ASHRAE 90.1-2007?
Yes, it is possible for international facilities to benchmark and track energy and water performance within the EPA's Portfolio Manager system. When creating the facility within your Portfolio Manager account, you will have the option to select the correct Country. You will also have the option to select the nearest city. These selections will allow the Portfolio Manager system to account for local weather when generating annual performance metrics. For more information as to how the Portfolio Manager system accounts for weather, please see the following document, (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/Methodology_W...).
I hope it helps.
I have seen in the form version 4.0 of leedonline for EAc5.1 that in the ADITIONAL DETAILS, there is an option (check box) that says: 'The Project is pursuing exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. for EA Credit 5.1', however according to the LEED reference guide , this credit is not eligible for Exemplary Performance. So, please let me know whether or not this credit really applies for Exemplary Performance, and if so, is there a threshold to comply with?
Yes, this was a 2/2/2011 addendum. The EP point is for pursuing Option 3 in addition to Options 1 or 2.
This may be a stupid question, but I am reviewing the requirements for EAc5.1 and came across Option 3. I don't really understand this, isn't this a requirement per the MPRs and aren't all 2009 projects required to do this anyways? Our project is a CS project with future tenant fit out spaces and residential spaces. In this case, does P1 form 1 require the project to submit energy and water data for just the common areas (not tenant or residential spaces) and/or the spaces the developer has control over OR does it require all tenant spaces to submit their usage as well? If its the latter, then there isn't anymore work to be done and we would automatically get EAc5.1, right? The credit form doesn't allow you to select two options so it doesn't seem you have to do Option 1 if doing Option 3. I think I am missing something and pretty confused how this work for a CS project. This is my first CS project and I seem to have tons of questions. Please help!
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2016 – BuildingGreen, Inc.