-
Repeated cycle of retrocommissioning
Ongoing commissioning involves performing critical elements of the retrocommissioning process, repeatedly over a series of two-year cycles. The idea is to optimize system performance and continue to fine-tune it, actively preventing problems for the lifetime of the building.
Third of three commissioning credits
The tasks of ongoing commissioning are similar to those performed during retrocommissioning, as completed for EAc2.1, Option 1 and EAc2.2. This credit simply repeats those activities over continuous and ongoing two-year cycles. You would not attempt EAc2.3 unless you have committed to EAc2.1 Option 1, and EAc2.2. (The activities associated with EAc2.1 Option 2, the ASHRAE Level II Audit, will not satisfy the rigorous expectations of an ongoing commissioning program.)
This credit is the least commonly pursued of the EAc2 credits, due to the requirement for an ongoing commitment to the commissioning process and the associated effort and cost.
What ongoing commissioning is and is not
Ongoing commissioning is the process of proactively monitoring, testing, and optimizing of the energy-powered building systems, and focuses on performance at both the system and component levels.
The typical preventive maintenance plan for a building does not constitute ongoing commissioning. Similarly, simply monitoring and performing maintenance to maintain the operational standards determined by a previous commissioning event does not rise to the standard of ongoing commissioning.
Buildings with a high level of complexity (highly integrated controls and advanced systems), that utilize a building automation system, and are big energy consumers may realize the most benefits from ongoing commissioning activities. Photo courtesy Synergy EngineeringWorth it on your project?
Whether or not you want to invest in ongoing commissioning will likely depend on the type of systems you have in terms of complexity and overall energy consumption. Buildings that have a high level of complexity (highly integrated controls and advanced systems), that utilize a building automation system, and are big energy consumers may realize the biggest benefit of ongoing commissioning activities. Such buildings might include healthcare facilities, laboratories, or commercial office buildings with advanced controls.
Consider these questions when approaching this credit
- Do we have a complex building that requires the use of a building automation system to manage highly integrated controls and advanced building systems that warrants ongoing monitoring and proactive testing of energy systems performance?
- Is a BAS with direct digital controls available to assist with some of the data collection and monitoring activities?
FAQs for LEED-EBOM EAc2.3
Is it possible to achieve EAc2.3 if our team conducted an ASHRAE Level II Audit to meet EAc2.1?
It is possible to meet EAc2.3 if you conducted an ASHRAE Level II Audit to meet EAc2.1, but it is generally impractical and not cost-effective. In order to meet EAc2.3, the project team would need to develop an ongoing commissioning plan, which would be based on a commissioning process rather than auditing activities conducted with the ASHRAE Level II Audit. Then, the team would need to implement at least 50% of the scope of commissioning work prior to the LEED submittal. In effect, this would mean both performing an energy audit and making substantial progress on implementing a commissioning program.
Are equipment and systems controlled by tenants required to be included in the ongoing commissioning plan?
All major energy-using systems are required to be covered by the ongoing commissioning plan. This includes systems that may be under tenant control. Keep in mind, though, that spaces under separate management control may be excluded from the credit requirements as long as no more than 10% of the total building space is excluded.
What types of buildings are likely to benefit from ongoing commissioning?
Buildings that have a high level of complexity (highly integrated controls and advanced systems), that utilize a building automation system, and are big energy consumers may realize the biggest benefit of ongoing commissioning activities. Such buildings might include healthcare facilities, laboratories, or commercial office buildings with advanced controls.
Also, certain building system types may benefit more from commissioning activities. For example introducing too much or not enough air into buildings can waste energy or create uncomfortable conditions. Buildings with complicated air-side systems and high ventilation air or exhaust needs often benefit from commissioning.
Legend
- Best Practices
- Gotcha
- Action Steps
- Cost Tip
Before the Performance Period
Expand All
A commissioning agent reviews a facility in Denver. Photo – YRG SustainabilityCoordinate the strategy for ongoing commissioning with the activities performed for EAp1: Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices, and EAc2.1 and EAc2.2, both covering existing building commissioning.
Ongoing commissioning is the process of proactively monitoring, testing, and optimizing building systems. Photo courtesy Synergy EngineeringThe typical preventive maintenance plan for a building does not constitute ongoing commissioning. Ongoing commissioning involves proactively monitoring, testing, and optimizing of the energy-powered building systems, and focuses on performance at both the system and component levels.
USGBC
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
EA Credit 2.3: Existing building commissioning - ongoing commissioning
2 points
Intent
To use commissioning to address changes in facility occupancy, use, maintenance and repair. Make periodic adjustments and reviews of building operating systems and procedures essential for optimal energy efficiency and service provision.
Requirements
Implement an ongoing commissioning program that includes elements of planning, system testing, performance verification, corrective action response, ongoing measurement and documentation to proactively address operating problems.
Create a written plan that summarizes the overall commissioning cycle for the building by equipment or building system group. The ongoing commissioning cycle must not exceed 24 months. This plan must include a building equipment list, performance measurement frequency for each equipment item and steps to respond to deviation from expected performance parameters.
Complete at least half of the scope of work in the first commissioning cycle (as indicated by the percentage of the plan’s total budget) prior to the date of application for LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance. Only work completed within 2 years prior to application may be included to show progress in the ongoing commissioning cycle.
Update the building operating planA general documentation summarizing the intended operation of each base building system described in the systems narrative; the building operating plan may also be known as "Owner's Operating Requirements" or similar. The operating plan includes the time-of-day schedules for each system for each of the eight day types (Monday to Sunday plus holidays), the mode of operation for each system when it is running (occupied vs. unoccupied; day vs. night, etc.), and the desired indoor conditions or setpoints for each schedule or mode. The operating plan accounts for any differences in needs or desired conditions for different portions of the project building, as well as any seasonal variations in operations patterns. The plan accounts for all the monitored space conditions used to control the base systems, i.e., air temperature, relative humidity, occupancy, light level, CO2 levels, room pressurization, duct static pressure, etc. and/or systems narrative as necessary to reflect any changes in the occupancy schedule, equipment run-time schedule, design set points, lighting levels or system specifications.
Potential Technologies & Strategies
Develop an ongoing commissioning program that addresses the ongoing changes and maintenance needs in an existing building.
Organizations
Building Commissioning Association
The BCxA promotes building practices that maintain high professional standards and fulfill building owner’s expectations. The association offers a 5-day intensive course focused on how to implement the commissioning process and that is intended for commissioning authorities with at least 2 years of experience.
California Commissioning Collaborative
The California Commissioning Collaborative is a group of government, utility, and building services professionals committed to developing and promoting viable building commissioning practices on California. Its online library has more than 300 resources, including articles, papers, guides, and sample commissioning documents.
Portland Energy Conservation Inc.
PECI develops the field for commissioning services by helping building owners understand the value of commissioning and by producing process and technical information for commissioning providers. Their focus includes owners of private and public buildings and a range of building types. PECI manages the annual National Conference on Building Commissioning.
Publications
The Retrocommissioning Handbook for Facility Managers
This PDF provide building owners and managers with basic information about the retrocommissioning process and help them receive maximum value from commissioning existing buildings. See resources in Appendix A – Appendix J including a request for proposal checklist for retrocommissioning services, sample site assessment forms, sample master list, and strategies for increasing retrocommissioning cost-effectiveness.
A Practical Guide for Commissioning Existing Buildings May 1999
This guide covers the benefits and how-to's of retrocommissioning projects.
Ongoing Commissioning RFP
Use this template to develop a request for proposal for ongoing commissioning services for your building.
LEED Online Forms: EBOM-2009 EA
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.-2009 EA credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms (newest):
- EAp2: Minimum Energy Peformance
- EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management
- EAc2.1: Commissioning—Investigation & Analysis
- EAc4: Onsite and Offsite Renewable Energy
- EAc5: Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Version 3 forms:
- EAp1: Energy Efficiency Best Mngt. Practices
- EAp2: Minimum Energy Peformance
- EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management
- EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance
- EAc2.1: Commissioning—Investigation & Analysis
- EAc2.2: Commissioning—Implementation
- EAc2.3: Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning
- EAc3.1: Perf. Measurement—BAS
- EAc3.2: Perf. Measurement—System-Level Monitoring
- EAc4: Onsite and Offsite Renewable Energy
- EAc5: Enhanced Refrigerant Management
- EAc6: Emissions Reduction Reporting
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
Sample LEED Online Form
This EAc2.3 LEED Online form with annotations demonstrates how to document this credit.
Percent Covered by Submeters
In this workbook, document the energy breakdown established from the ASHRAE Level I Audit, the submeters in place, and the percent of energy covered by each submeter.
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC.
26 Comments
Ongoing Cx Requirements
I have a question regarding EA2.3 As I understand it, it appears that the ongoing Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. process effectively begins with EAc2.1 and EAc2.2. The ongoing Cx plan must also include budgets and schedules for repeating this work at a given frequency, etc.
My question is: Do we need to confirm and document that the implemented changes in EAc2.2 were implemented correctly in EAc2.2, EAc2.3, or neither? Can we simply state what changes were made as part of the deficiency resolution or do we need to submit proof that it was resolved?
Thanks
Doing both the Level II assessment and credit EA2.3 "ongoing Cx"
Our team sees benefit to doing both, and making a deliberate effort to place energy-items into either the "audit" or "Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included." category (so we don't duplicate too much). The local utility offers incentives based on doing Cx, so the fact that we are doing both Level II and Cx is less of a burden to us.
The LEED-Letter-template for EA2.1 won't allow both Cx and Level II options (you must pick one). For ours, we plan to pick the Level II. So, in order to get credit for EA2.3, we will have to explain in narrative on the LEED-Letter-template for EA2.3 that we are actualy doing a combined retro-Cx + on-going-Cx, with appropriate uploads. Has anyone done this? Did GBCI award the points for both credits EA2.1 and EA2.3? Any advice? Thank you.
Ongoing commissioning when follow EA c2.1- option 2
My project pursued EA c2.1, Option 2 - ASHREA level 2 energy audit. I am quite confused that from the previous comment in EA c 2.1 and my understading of guideline, my project is ineligible to conduct ongoing commissioning because it requires a full process, while in this FAQ, my project can follow this credit. So which is true?
If I repeat energy audit in EA c 2.1, then ongoing commissioning is not necessary (or it becomes impractical and not cost-effective when I pursue)and so I miss 2 points for EA c 2.3 without any compensation. This means that 2 options in EA c2.1 are not equal because only when I choose EA c2.1 Option 1, I can get 4 points from C2.1 and c2.3 in the cost effective manner, while following option 2, I only get 2 points. So I think USGBC should give 4 points for option 2 in EA c2.1. What do you think about that?
Thank you very much!
EAc2.1 work
From reading these comments, it seems like any work done EAc2.1 MAY NOT count toward this credit. Activities that were done for EAc2.1 would have to be repeated, making EAc2.1 a baseline case...am I understading this correctly?
Thanks so much for your input!
I am confused by your question... Can you elaborate on what you are thinking. There is a difference between Option 1 and 2 in EAc2.1 that is referenced in a comment lower down on this page - is that what you are referring to?
Hi Matthew,
Sorry for any confusion...our team chose Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. in 2.1, and we were concerned that the work done for that credit (initial commissioning) would not count toward the 50% by cost threshold to earn EAc2.3...do have any thoughts on this?
ok i think i've got it now. From what i understand the point is to almost work backwards with these credits and definitely think of them holistically. Let me see if I can explain: if you choose this credit, then you agree to a plan and the implementation of at least half of that plan before you hit the submit button. If you perform the entire process (2.1), make changes as a result (2.2), and then commission those changes then you are demonstrating compliance with all 3. Since this credit requires the planning for these Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. activities as an ongoing process, you'll want to use that process in when proving compliance with 2.1 - if you don't however and for instance have an outside agency simply write up a report for 2.1, you may have trouble proving that 50% threshold. hopefully that helps!
Thanks so much for your reply, Matt - We have hired an outside Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. firm, and they will be providing a report for EAc2.1 and the plan for EAc2.3...if you have any examples of a filled-out plan or any tips for documenting EAc2.3, we would be so grateful! So glad to hear that our work for EAc2.1 will count toward compliance with this credit - good news! Thanks again -
EAc2.3 (Existing Building Commissioning - Ongoing Commissioning) requires at least half the scope of the first ongoing commissioning cycle to be completed prior to the LEED application submission date. If Option 1, Commissioning Process compliance path is pursued under EAc2.1, the retrocommissioning work completed under EAc2.1 and its associated costs may be used to account for a percentage of this ongoing commissioning cost when considering this initial retrocommissioning as part of the first two-year ongoing commissioning cycle. However, the team must complete 100% of the retrocommissioning activities in order to achieve EAc2.1. The 50% threshold is based on the entire ongoing commissioning cycle cost (max. two years).
PNNL Re-Tuning Methodology
How about considering the PNNL Re-Tuning Methodology as a pilot credit ?
It is a complete process - techniques and skills - and includes training of staff.
See http://www.pnl.gov/buildingretuning/outreach.stm
Mike,
I understand that you see the PNNL Re-Tuning Methodology as different than the requirements of Ongoing Commissioning. Please share what differences you see between the two sets of tasks.
Shane,
It's not that they are different. It was not my intention to suggest that it be a pilot credit in the sense that it's some thing different. It could be a extension to the existing credit then ?
In any case, it's more about the PNNL approach being a complete and self-contained process. Compliance and adherence to the PNNL approach should be sufficient with out requiring us to jump though more hoops in terms of documentation ?
Take the NC EAc1 credit for example - there are 3 different approaches that can be used - each option originating from a different organisation yet with the same goals in mind ?
I guess my argument also involves EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. EAc2.1 too.
As LEED goes international, there is no harm in having many different options either, to cater for the different approaches around the world.
Comments from a LEED review
We just received comments on a review of this credit I am trying to understand. For this project, we actually had an approved MV plan from LEED NC credit EAc5. The plan is very detailed and addresses how to trend and look for variations in performance of each component (chillers, boilers, air handlers, heat recovery wheels, motors, etc.). The comment said, “the ongoing commissioning program should include elements of planning, system testing, performance verification, corrective action response, ongoing measurement, and documentation to proactively address operating problems. This includes evidence that rigorous functional testing of equipment (e.g., by changing parameters, setpointsSetpoints are normal operating ranges for building systems and indoor environmental quality. When the building systems are outside of their normal operating range, action is taken by the building operator or automation system. or conditions and observing and documenting the system or equipment response through various modes and conditions over time) is being performed in the project building…. Note that system monitoring and preventive maintenance activities alone are not sufficient for achieving this credit, nor are repetition of the energy auditing activities associated with Option 2 of EAc2.1”
What I don’t understand is where is the value in additional functional testing. If something is going off, it would show up in the trends. Why push the setpoints around if maintaining them where they are is maintaining your energy consumption and efficiency targets? We could repeat some of the Functional Performance Tests from the initial building Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. process, but again, where is the value? (I can see that this would confirm some of the safety and fault procedures, but how is that related to the intent of this credit?) I know the ref guide says “monitoring” is not enough, but it also says that “portable data loggers are likely necessary,” and I have yet to see a variable that would contribute to ongoing Cx that can’t be put into a BMS if you want to.
Also, wouldn’t it make sense if following through on your plan approved for LEED-NC EAc5 actually earned you the related LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credit? Why get an M&V plan in one LEED rating system if it won’t play in another?
Unfortunately what you think makes sense and meets the credit intent is not always what works for LEED. They have strict requirements for each credit, and rarely accept another approach, however compelling the argument is.
With that said, I think there certainly is some benefit to functional testing above and beyond what can come out of trending. Trending is limited by the time frame of each data point. When functional testing the system you can see how the system reacts immediately to the changes placed on it. I am not sure how often you are trending, but every 15 minutes is what I have encountered in the past. Also, by only reading and interpreting data you are making assumptions on what the system is doing, by functional testing it you are viewing exactly what is occurring which will allow you to spot issues and errors in the system.
Finally, your energy consumption goals are estimates, though based on historic information they will always be estimates. You system could have significant issues and still potentially meet or be near your energy consumption targets because other factors like occupancy or monthly outside air temps are favorable.
Scope of comissioning
Hello-
We're working on a building that is not owner occupied and the tenant has 48 additional pieces of equipment that are not a part of the base building that are currently only being monitored for alarms. Is this equipment part of the project scope in terms of commissioning? The owner has no control over these items.
Thanks for your help
All of the components of the building's major energy-using systems have to be included in the commissioning process. This means that all HVAC equipment, including tenant equipment, will have to be included in the commissioning plan.
New Chiller Installation & Performance Period
Hello:
We are beginning an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. v2 project soon and we are unsure of how a new chiller installation will affect our certification. We are replacing two steam absorption chillers with two new electric drive chillers.
We have read in the ref. guide that if major changes to building equipment are made during the perf. pd, collect at least 3-months of data afterwards.
Besides this additional 3 months, is there anything else we should be aware of before we set our perf. pd?
Thank you very much.
A few things to consider, you might be able to qualify for MRc3 and MRc9, both involve facility alterations and additions made during the performance period. Another item to consider is that by updating such major equipment you may see a considerable increase in energy efficiency, which could help with EAp2 and EAc1.
Frequency of Inspections
In looking to achieve this credit, I am planning on writing a Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. plan that meets the requirements described in the Reference Guide, but I am planning on putting the frequency of each inspection right at 2 years and doing them all at the same time, rather than spread them all out. This would be both cost effective for the client and make it easier for the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements..
However, in reading the Reference Guide it seems that LEED is assuming all these inspections required will be done at different times. So the CxA would have to make multiple site visits throughout the year to perform each task, why not do it all at once? Would LEED frown upon this approach and would it still meet the intent of the credit?
Thanks!
Ben,
A lot of the ongoing commissioning items typically feed into a buildings normal operating plan. Checking calibration of thermostats, confirming supply temperatures, confirming functionality of lighting controls... Are the retro-commissioning items you are referring to similar to an outside air balance or another larger maintenance service?
Well I am certainly referring to all of those items you listed, as well as bigger picture items such inspection of HVAC equipment, pumps, fans, filters, motors etc. The items you listed are certainly included in my list but from what I understand the intent of the credit is for a 3rd party to complete the tasks, not the building maintenance staff. So why have a CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. come to the site to simply confirm supply temps, wait three months then come back and confirm functionality of lighting controls? The fact that LEED wants 50% completed during the performance period is confusing, wouldn't it be logical just to it all at one time?
I'm not sure a 3rd party is required for this credit. It does ask that the commissioning team take a systems wide approach that is beyond the normal operation and maintenance scope. If the operations staff contracts with a 3rd party to perform a detailed functional testing every 2 years it will certainly add great value by helping to calibrate the ongoing commissioning testing that is being performed as part of the operating plan. It should be noted that the ongoing functional testing piece of the commissioning process can be automated through a buildings BMS system. Check out this article for a case study: http://resources.cacx.org/library/holdings/050.pdf.
Ongoing Commissioning Overlap with New Building Commissioning
Has anyone purused this credit for a project previously receiving the Enhanced Commissioning Credit for LEED NC Certification? And if so, do you know if the performance period for the EB On-going Commissioning can ap back into the 10 Month post substantial commissioning period for the NC enhanced commissioning credit?
THANKS!
I'm concerned that documenting EA2.1 and EA2.2 are independent of documenting EA2.3 and require independent processes. In short, if your team is identifying cost saving measures during the first 10 months using EA2.1 it might not satisfy putting into practice 50% of an ongoing retro commissioning plan. (Required by this credit.)
What are your thoughts?
That's a good point...the issue might be more about whether work done can contribute to the credit if it was done before a 'Formal LEED compliant' retro-commissiong plan was developed (but within the 2 year window provided by initial EB certification).....Maybe as part of an alternative compliance path around 'out of LEED sequence' work that meets the credit intent?
Doug,
I have the same question. Did you ever pursue using a LEED NC Enhanced Commissioning as the 1st half of the Ongoing RCx process? Did it work?
Thanks,
Sonrisa
Start a new LEED comment thread