Measurement and verification (M&V) involves recording actual energy use over the course of occupancy, and comparing that data with the estimated energy use seen in the design. The M&V process ensures all systems are performing as specified and identifies any anomalies in equipment, operations procedures or user habits. In addition, an M&V plan can help reduce energy costs, assist with commissioning, and, over time, document and improve the efficiencies of energy conservation measures.
M&V gives you a plan and a system to compare your project’s actual performance against design predictions. While M&V can be applied to a variety of metrics including water use and indoor environmental quality, this credit focuses only on energy performance. To earn it, you’ll need to develop an M&V plan, install devices to support the plan, and also have steps in place for corrective action. The credit requirements don’t tell you exactly what systems to monitor—that depends on your mechanical system design and what equipment you have installed. In general, you are expected to monitor energy from all systems or components that will provide data points for end uses identified in the energy model and that will help in the recalibration of the model.
The cost of M&V varies a lot. Added costs come from designing and installing specific monitoring systems, including adding multiple meters and wiring. The cost is higher in larger and more complex buildings or those with multiple uses. The cost premium will be lower if your project already plans to include a Building Management System (BMS) or submeters to record usage data. If your building is small with a minimum set of uses, and needs only few meters to meet the credit, an M&V system might also be relatively affordable.
For large buildings that have complex mechanical and electrical systems and that do not have a BMS, adding the equipment and systems needed to implement an M&V plan is likely to be cost-prohibitive. Some projects also find that Option B (see the Checklists tab) is particularly costly due to the requirements of added meters and wiring.
Despite aiming high during design, LEED-certified buildings don’t always perform as well as expected. An M&V program will not only help building operators be aware of performance issues, it can locate the source of problems or poor assumptions, and provide a better overall understanding of the value of energy-saving strategies.
To make the investment worth it, the owner must be committed to developing and implementing the M&V plan, analyzing and understanding the building’s performance, and acting on the results. The cost premium of M&V installation and operation is typically offset by long-term energy savings, but this is highly dependent on the building type as well as the owner’s willingness to make needed changes and upgrades. The credit is generally more applicable for larger commercial buildings than residential buildings since its cost benefits may not affect the developers directly. Residential buildings may also see less benefit because the building operator has little control over energy use by residents.
The “M&V provider” takes responsibility for developing the M&V 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. (See Resources for more information.)
Although no specific metering is required for this credit, the following list outlines energy uses that are often included in the M&V plan (where applicable).
A measurement plan can include a sampling of units, and must include end uses. However, the metering does not have to be permanent. A short-term metering plan could be worked out with occupants in the units being sampled.
No. DDC control points are not intended to measure energy consumption.
It depends. This usage must be included in your models. If they are a significant energy user (say more than 5% of gas usage) then yes the energy use should be measured or derived. If the usage is small you might be able to make the case that you would not need to measure it.
Generally, if you have interactive energy conservation measures (ECMs) in new construction, you need to follow option D. Most new construction has interactive ECMs, and Option B is very rarely accepted by LEED reviewers for this reason.
No. This is a consistent source of confusion and is not an ASHRAE or LEED requirement. You should always model the process loads as accurately as possible to reflect the actual building equipment and operation. If the baseline is less than the 25% default, simply note why that is the case.
No. It can be a manual measurement, short-term trending device or permanent submeter. In certain situations an energy end use does not need to be "measured" at all but can be derived based on other data.
This part of the M&V Plan can't be very detailed since you do not yet know what needs to be done. What you will do depends upon the issues uncovered. In general the action plan simply identifies what you will do when deviations occur between the projected savings and the actual savings. Typically this involves identifying additional energy saving strategies in the facility and using the calibrated model, for example, to determine additional energy savings. The cost and savings of the additional energy saving measures should be summarized in the final M&V report. It's a good idea to indicate that the owner will be responsible for implementing these recommendations as budget and time allow.
Consider incorporating a Building Management System (BMS) into the building. A BMS will streamline implementation of this credit, while offering other benefits.
Consider the impact of an M&V system on space requirements. Keep in mind that a BMS will require additional space for monitors, wiring and sensors.
Consider the impact of an M&V program on mechanical system design requirements. Consider whether or not your mechanical system is capable of providing the necessary outputs for the BMS or monitoring system. The outputs are typically the energy usage recorded as kWh, Btus or therms for a given period of time. It may be an automated record kept by the BMS, or a metered reading on the equipment manually carried out at regular intervals. The specifics of the output metric and duration would be determined in the M&V plan and depend on the system installed.
The “M&V provider” develops 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 into systems rather than becoming add-ons.
Discuss as a team whether M&V will contribute to the project’s goals for energy reduction and systems monitoring. Consider the project size, its complexity, and whether you plan to run a whole-building energy model. Also think about how the building is likely to be operated. If the system is not likely to be fully utilized, it may not be an appropriate investment.
Determine whether 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 B or Option D is most appropriate for the project design. (Option C, which was allowed in earlier versions of LEED, is not allowed, as it is considered less accurate, and doesn't allow for M&V of individual energy conservation measures.)
Data to support calculations (Option B) or calibration of simulations (Option D) is taken from a combination of meters and sensors included in the building automation systems, and through temporary installation of additional sensors and data loggers as needed.
Energy savings is determined by comparing actual metered or measured energy use to the projected energy use of a baseline building under similar operating conditions.
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.
Metering individual hotel rooms may not be feasible due to inconsistent occupancy and limited ability to control energy usage. If your hotel project includes M&V, you must track occupancy data based on daily sales records. Metering all common spaces can benefit operations, though it won’t be sufficient to earn the LEED credit.
Multifamily residential buildings are required to submeter all apartments individually and to collect data from occupants. Usage information may be made available to the occupants and energy cost savings may be transferred in lease or sale contracts.
Utility companies may provide incentives or rebates for submetering and BMS programs. For example, New York City provides $2,000 per meter for advanced master meter installation in affordable housing and $1,500 per meter for market-rate housing. Check with your local utility to see if they provide any rebates.
The cost of M&V varies significantly from one project to another. Projects will need to get project-specific bids based on their individual design needs. The usefulness and the cost of M&V plans are influenced by the following:
An M&V program that is implemented throughout the life of the building will provide the highest return on investment. Design your M&V program for use throughout the life of the building to provide the highest return on investment.
Isolating and metering different ECMs, such as HVAC systems or lighting, can provide useful information on energy consumption and provide insight on energy reduction measures.
The cost implications for ECM isolation depend on how many meters are installed and the complexity of the systems being monitored. See the appendix in ASHRAE, Guideline 14 for estimating the cost of meters. If systems are easily isolated and don’t require many meters, this credit can be relatively cheap, with Option B being more cost-effective than Option D.
Sub-metering different use areas in mixed-use buildings, such as office and laboratory space, can offer insight into what energy reduction measures will be most appropriate for different use spaces.
Option D is the best choice for projects with highly efficient building envelopes and efficient mechanical and electrical systems.
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 will not provide the detailed information that a BMS would 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, but smaller, single-occupancy buildings may find that packaged energy monitors or monthly utility bills can provide helpful feedback without the 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 subtract the totaled submeter number from the total building usage to get the estimated plug load number.
An M&V program generally includes sensors—which measure the volume and rate of flow, 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 should be easy, though.
The cost implications of this credit vary from one project to the next. Costs will depend on the complexity of the meter and sub-metering system, the cost of energy modeling and calibration, the cost of commissioning, and the size and complexity of the building. The cost premium for M&V will be lower for projects that already include a BMS.
The cost to create a M&V plan for Option D is influenced by the following, according to IPMVP:
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 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
The M&V provider works with the MEP to verify that all systems are designed to allow metering and submetering. Meters must be capable of interfacing with the selected BMS or metering system.
The MEP 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 will allow easier monitoring of water consumption and 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.
Adding a M&V program to the project after mechanical and electrical systems have been designed may be cost-prohibitive due to redesign costs.
The M&V provider determines all of the ECMs that need isolation and verifies that these systems do not interact with any other ECM.
The M&V provider works with the owner and MEP 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 the M&V plan. Otherwise a new model may be run to determine the baseline energy use. The actual energy use will be compared to this baseline.
The BMS should be set up to collect data that will allow 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 plan must be able to identify specific building performance issues. A BMS or submetering will be able to build this capacity into the system.
The Whole Building Calibration Simulation requires information about the instruments that enable the project to monitor the categories listed in the IPMVP.
The question of which systems need to be monitored is building-specific and is not prescribed by the credit requirements.
Total energy consumption of the building must be tracked, along with any variables that may influence energy consumption. For example, in a hotel you would need to track occupancy.
Projects must verify the savings of the efficiency measures. If individual metering capacity is not built into the project, the project must demonstrate some other firm commitment to obtaining this data. This requirement can be accomplished by providing a copy of the contract for data collection by a third party of individual meters.
The M&V provider writes the M&V plan. If possible, involve the facility’s operational staff in writing the plan. The plan should lay out the measurement and response protocol. The M&V plan must define the following:
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.
Coordinate with the 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 which systems are to be sub-metered and which are being spot metered, and how. The plan also explains how the energy end use is being predicted and measured, and how the M&V information will be used, such as adjusting building operations to reduce energy use. The plan shall also include a section on corrective action that will take place if the baseline energy use and the post-construction energy use vary greatly.
The plan establishes who is responsible for managing the process during operations and for taking corrective action. The plan also establishes how long the monitoring will continue.
The M&V provider demonstrates through a narrative that the M&V plan will be able to verify actual energy use. For energy systems that are not addressed in the M&V plan you will need to provide a detailed reason for exclusion in the narrative.
The M&V plan should define the actions that will be taken by the facility manager to investigate the cause of any discrepancies found and correct any malfunctioning equipment. If goals are not met, or if unexpected performance occurs, the M&V systems will provide useful feedback in tracking the source of problems.
Variable loads such as dimming controls can be profiled with short-term measurements that determine a load value pegged against another variable point that can be measured or accurately estimated over time. ECMs have to be metered to obtain actual savings. Variable loads like dimming controls can be measured only by metering them first at full power and then at low power. Measure and plot the power use at various dimming points at consistent time intervals.
Determine the baseline energy use for the ECMs.
The 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.
The 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 the actual energy use. According to Option D of IPMVP III, the model must be calibrated so 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.
Where applicable, the M&V plan should specify submetering sensor locations. Define the specific sensors with 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.
The M&V submetering devices or BMS are installed and commissioned 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.
Verify that the whole-building simulation model matches the as-built design.
The M&V plan is 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 energy performance issues and corrective actions.
If there are discrepancies between projected energy use and actual use, identify the cause and follow the M&V plan for corrective action. Discrepancies may result from inaccuracies in the simulation model, actual building use that differs from anticipated occupancy, improperly functioning equipment, and switches and controls not being properly calibrated.
Meters and submeters should be recalibrated periodically according to manufacturers’ recommendations.
Encourage the operations team to focus on running the building at optimal efficiency.
Record any post-construction upgrades or changes to operations and maintenance in order to best understand post-construction energy use.
A 5%–10% discrepancy between the baseline energy use and the post-construction energy use may account for operational changes in a good energy model. However, a 25% discrepancy would not be out of the ordinary.
The payback period for M&V programs depends on the initial cost of additional meters and whether the program identifies 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 monitors 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 by commissioning.
M&V systems 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 the M&V system. Although more expensive to install, a complex building or a building with multi-tenant spaces can benefit financially from an integrated computerized BMS that assists in day-to-day management.
The facilities manager or M&V provider compares the baseline energy use of the ECMs to the post-construction energy use.
The ECM usage can be tracked with a simple spreadsheet and does not require complicated calculations or modeling.
Set up the BMS to provide monthly reports as required by the M&V plan, if applicable.
Perform a calibrated building energy simulation model that reflects actual occupancy and weather, after the first year’s 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 on 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 greater than 10% from 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 using energy usage from utility bills to compare against energy usage from previous years. The calibrated model is compared to the actual energy consumption rates and changes need to be made to the model until acceptable calibration is achieved. After all calibration adjustments have been made to the as-built energy model the same changes need to be made to the baseline energy model.
Energy savings is verified by either comparing the calibrated as-built model to the calibrated baseline model, or by comparing the calibrated baseline energy use to the actual metered energy use.
Twelve months of data from the metered categories is used to calibrate the computer simulation model. The M&V plan shall demonstrate the ability to identify specific problem areas if discrepancies exist between the modeled and metered data. When calibrating the as-built energy model, weather patterns must be reflected. You may be able to obtain this through the BMS. Calibration changes will also include occupancy and operational adjustments to reflect actual usage.
Calibration of the energy model will add a small cost on top of the cost of the baseline as-built energy model.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
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 in 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 M&V period must cover at least 1 year of postconstruction occupancy.
Provide a process for corrective action if the results of the M&V plan indicate that energy savings are not being achieved.
Develop and implement a measurement and verification (M&V) plan consistent with Option B: Energy Conservation Measure Isolation, as specified in 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. Measurement & verification 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.
For the corrective action process, consider installing diagnostics within the control system to alert the staff when equipment is not being optimally operated. Conditions that might warrant alarms to alert staff could include:
Besides control diagnostics, consider employing retro-commissioning services or dedicating staff to investigate increases in energy usage (such a staff member is usually a resource conservation manager — see http://www.energy.state.or.us/rcm/rcmhm.htm for additional information).
M&V blog that is a place where the community can raise and discuss issues that arise in the practice of valuing efficiency projects.
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.
This website provides a list of resources to help teams implement an M&V program.
These M&V guidelines are written for federal buildings but could be helpful for many projects.
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.
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..
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 article discusses the usefulness of M&V, including examples of problems that M&V systems have been able to identify.
NOTE: WATERGY is not currently available, but may be again in the future.
WATERGY is a spreadsheet model that uses water and energy relationship assumptions to analyze the potential of water savings and associated energy savings.
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.
This Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan sample follows Option D: Calibrated Simulation.
Documentation for this credit is part of the Construction Phase submittal.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each NC-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):
Version 3 forms:
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictsions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
I have a project seeking this credit where our MEP subconsultant is writing the M&V Plan and the Owner is implementing the M&V Plan. The Owner will likely hire a facilities manager however I am trying to define the qualifications required to implement the M&V Plan. I have been unsuccessful at finding anything in writing to give to my owner. Any help would be appreciated.
The critical qualifications are those of the person/firm that will be responsible for calibrating the energy model. The typical owner/facility manager generally does have this expertise. The typical facility manager can gather data (sometimes with some training) and perform some of the tasks associated with implementing the Plan.
I am working on a large campus project. We are planning on obtaining EA 5 for all eight facilities on the campus. However, we are not doing energy models for all eight facilities. We are obtaining credit EA 1 for five of the buildings using the Prescriptive Compliance Path: Option 2 and the Prescriptive Compliance Path: Option 3. SInce we don't have an initial energy model to 're-calibrate' for these five facilities I would like to know if we still obtain this credit? Would the authority responsible for validating the M&V process after occupancy be responsible for creating a model? Does our M&V plan need to indicate this?
You could still get the credit by following Option D and creating an energy model. This would have to be clearly spelled out in the M&V Plan and part of the plan is always to identify the responsible parties for all of the M&V tasks.
Unless you can make the case that this approach adds value to the projects, it strikes me that attempting to do so is simply a point hunting exercise. I would concentrate on the value proposition and only follow Option 1 if it makes sense to do so. Otherwise consider Option 3.
Marcus, Option B for ECMEnergy conservation measures are installations or modifications of equipment or systems intended to reduce energy use and costs. isolation might also be technically possible...although it may be difficult depending on the mix of ECMs, and whether any interact. (And what doesn't interact with the HVAC system?)
I don't think Option D is point hunting necessarily if the client really wants to verify the performance. It would be an example of unfortunate timing, since the energy models could have been used for so much more if completed earlier instead of post-construction.
Option 3 for one point is going to look very attractive to your client if the cost of full M&V (and all of this modeling) is too high.
I have not seen a green building yet where Option B would work but I am sure it is possible.
Sounds like we agree that any 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. M&V effort is only worth it if it adds value. IMO it is point hunting if it does not add value beyond the accumulation of those points. If it does add value then it is all good.
We have a project installing a VAVVariable Air Volume (VAV) is an HVAC conservation feature that supplies varying quantities of conditioned (heated or cooled) air to different parts of a building according to the heating and cooling needs of those specific areas. air conditioning system with electrical reheat boxes in each zone.
The current design assigns energy submeters combining both the electrical reheat with the small equipment power.
My query is: do we need to monitor / submeter the electrical reheat separately, given that it is not as significant as the total heating consumption from the building boilers?
You are actually not required to monitor or 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 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..
Can you accurately calibrate the model with the information you are currently gathering? Can you gather or derive the data another way, without a submeter? What is "not as significant"? If the energy use is very small for both the electric reheat and the small equipment power then you would need to justify that the usage is not significant (which you would define in your M&V Plan). Relative significance is not the issue, overall significance is the issue.
So you need to answer your own question. Do you need that data to calibrate your model?
My project team wants to add the M&V however we are facing physical constraints on adding digital meters for all the electro-mechanical systems.
Could we count on the logical measurement via the BMS system monitoring to performance instead of having real accurate measurement?
You are not required to have any submeters 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..
Measurements from the BMS may work. Just be sure that the M&V Plan spells out how these will translate to a measurement of energy use for each of the major energy end uses.
Thank you for this very helpful forum. I have read every comment on EAc5 as I prepare to submit our first M&V plan. Under NC2009, I am pursuing M&V but I am looking at significant additional cost to "recalibrate" the model. I am looking to make the argument that actual measured data is more effective than recalibrating the model.
My questions are:
1. Does option D require recalibrating the model or is it sufficient to take measurements and compare to the original modeling predictions to highlight deficiencies? sect. 4.5.7. of 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. says you must calibrate both baseline and asbuilt models, 4.5.8 method 2 says you can subtract metered asbuilt energy from a calibrated baseline energy model to determine savings. This would give actual savings which is what we are after right?
2. If option D does require calibration of the model, I am considering option B but I see the comments that option B is rarely accepted for NC. Can we avoid the issue with interdependent ECMEnergy conservation measures are installations or modifications of equipment or systems intended to reduce energy use and costs.'s if we just measure everything such that interdependencies are quantified? Our manufacturing processes require intensive monitoring and control (+/-0.1degF and %RH) so most points are existing with portable instruments to cover gaps. For example, we stream all chiller, pump, fan data and trend flows and delta T’s so isolating ECM’s to validate a metric like kW/ton is readily available. This way I could compare work in (kW) to work out (btuh to kW) and assume that the remaining converts to heat to the ambient space.
Interested to hear whether you think this is viable with GBCI. Tks so much for any guidance you would be willing to offer.
1. You must calibrate the model. It is not sufficient to compare the modeling results to the actual. Either approach is acceptable. The thing to keep in mind is that the purpose of 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. is to produce verified energy savings. For new construction that is comparison to an Appendix G baseline.
2. The basic issue with Option B is the degree of interactive energy efficiency strategies. If you can isolate each one individually you may be able to make the case for using it. In my experience this is virtually impossible (or far more difficult) to do for each one without an energy model.
Got it, tks very much Marcus
According to EA5 Measure and verification, required 1 year of energy usage report.
But in PI from 1: Minimum Program Requirement (PIf1-1), required for duration of five years.
Is it under same Energy Building registration?
Do we do five years or one year?
EAc5 Option 1 or 2 requires one year of data and a significant effort to implement a M&V Plan.
EAc5 Option 3 requires providing 5 years of data.
After completing PI form with five year commitment, we have picked option 1 for the EAc5. Is that OK?
I guess we have to go with five years,right???
Yep Option 1 within the PIf4 form is the one which earns one point.
You commit to providing data for five years.
We're submitting for M&V under LEEDv2009. We're going with Option D - Calibrated Simulation. Our energy model did not use the performance path. The template form is the Beta version (and I don't believe that the team will update the form versions as we've already got credits completed for our Construction Phase submission).
I'm confused on the first table in the template. We have our End Use and Proposed Energy Consumption. My question is: "How do I complete the table for 'Metered Energy Use' when we haven't started to perform the work in the M&V plan?" Am I misinterpreting the value that we are supposed to input into this table?
Nevermind. I figured out how to upgrade the form...it looks like it won't upgrade all forms in the project.
Thank you -
When using Option D, should we wait till the end of the 1 year monitoring to obtain the credit and, therefore, the final building certification? Or would be enough to submit the M&V plan and get the compromise to monitor and fulfill it, like in Option B?
Thanks in advance
The credit achievement is based on the M&V Plan you submit. You do not need to wait until the plan has been fully implemented to obtain the credit and earn certification.
With that said by creating the plan you are saying that you will implement it and USGBC takes you at your word. Unfortunately far too many projects have not implemented their M&V Plan based on some of the follow up studies on LEED projects.
Option B rarely works for new construction/major renovation projects.
Thank you very much, Marcus
Is the USGBC doing anything about enforcing the activities in the M&V Plan? I ask because it is much more compelling (financially) for a building owner to not install any metering infrastructure (seperate circuitry, Building management system with datalogging capability, etc..) then to just have a consultant create an elaborate measurement and verification plan that includes spot measurement and trending for all the building systems.
Not sure which way to take your question so I will address both ways.
You are not planning to implement the Plan - Let your conscious be your guide. Personally if I write a M&V Plan I will not submit it unless it will be implemented. To do otherwise is simply dishonest no matter the level of enforcement.
You are planning to implement the Plan - In my experience if it is a very small project with very simple HVAC systems then it is cheaper overall to forgo 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).. If it is a larger project the cost of the submetering will pay for itself in avoided labor. So it comes down to a balance between the metering costs versus the labor required to gather the data without it.
I would like to find out what are the requirements for achieving EAc5 - Option #3?
Where can I find information to read on MPR #6? and
What is :" Option 1 in Pl Form1?
Thank you very much
You agree to provide to USGBC 5 years of energy data. Most commonly this would be provided through a Portfolio Manager account (part of US EPA Energy Star). You can view the LEED Online forms on USGBC's web site. PIf1 is the MPRs.
I am glad to have a forum like LEEDuser to ask this question, since this has mystified me for many years. The M&V activities described by the credit language seem to me to do more benefit to the engineer than to the building owner. In essence, this credit is written to validate and calibrate the energy model, though it doesn't seem to have a direct focus on maximizing building and system efficiency. In my opinion, the real benefits of a sub-metering system are to:
1) Identify equipment that is malfunctioning: running for too long, not functioning at all, drawing energy at higher demands than usual.
2) Make effective use of maintenance staff by addressing small problems before they become big problems.
3) Decrease the likelihood of equipment failure as a result of neglect and the associated costs of new equipment and interruption of the activities of the building.
Am I missing something about the value of this LEED credit that is somehow larger than long-term energy monitoring?
Additionally, in the past I have written M&V plans geared towards long-term energy monitoring, and not validation of the energy model. These have generally been accepted, as we tend emphasize the human capacity in place to make use of the data and deal with exceptions. We have made general nods towards 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, but don't closely align to it. We use the first year of data as the baseline for comparison, as the systems are new and recently commissioned. Subsequent years/months are compared to those in the baseline to identify problems and exceptions.
However, in this new era of strict adherence to LEED language, I worry that this approach may no longer fly. Also, projects we have worked on focus on electricity consumption, and not gas or water. Does anyone have any guidance on how these are being reviewed and what exactly is considered acceptable these days?
Any insights would be appreciated.
Many people have been highly confused about the fundamental purpose of this credit. In certain respects the credit intent is not in full alignment with the intent of the referenced standard. In LEED v4 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. portion of the credit was removed and the new credit will be more in alignment with your understanding.
The one thing I did not see in your post is the fundamental purpose of the IPMVP upon which credit compliance is based. The IPMVP was created to create a uniform set of methodologies to verify predicted energy savings. Some owners benefit from this pursuit, some do not.
The benefits of 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). are related to this credit but permanently installed submetering systems are not a requirement to comply with IPMVP. So if you submeter then yes there are operational benefits as you describe.
M&V Plans have been accepted that focus on the credit intent rather than IPMVP Option D compliance. It is not possible to say whether your approach would be accepted or not without thoroughly reviewing the details. In general is you are submetering the major energy end uses and have a monitoring and corrective action plan in place you can make the case that you comply with the credit intent even if you do not necessarily comply with the IPMVP Option D.
If you are following Option D then you will need to demonstrate in the Plan a detailed description of how you are going to gather the data one would need to calibrate the energy model, how you are going to go about calibrating the energy model and reconcile it with the actual utility bills to verify savings and what are going to do if the savings turn out to be less than predicted.
Under the reference guide, it is requiring for process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making. to be submetered, which according to the glossary involves cooling tower water, boilers and chillers, but if the cooling tower is serving several tenant, how can it be measured or segreated to be measured?
I could not find a reference to process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making. in EAc5 in the Reference Guide. Is it in an addenda?
Marcus Sheffer posted some months ago in this credit:
"You will need to calibrate the model by energy end use on a monthly (and annual) basis.
Yes you would need to separate out the electric end uses in order to calibrate the model. Whole building metered data is not sufficient."
I am reading 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., page 18, Table 2:
"How Savings Are Calculated:
Energy use simulation, calibrated with hourly or monthly UTILITY BILL data. (Energy end use metering MAY be used to help refine input data.)"
Therefore, sub-metering does NOT appear to be mandatory for credit compliance, since sub-metering MAY be used to help refine input data.
I am glad to have different insights to this issue.
In addition, quoting 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. Vol III, Concepts and Practices for Determining Energy Savings in New Construction, Part I, page 18:
"Option D Involves of computer simulation of whole building energy use. The Post-Construction Energy Use is determined by utility metering and/OR 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 by using an energy simulation model of the as-built building calibrated to metered energy use data."
I think I was the one who also asked Marcus regarding this issue. I think the reviewer will look for the method of how we can reach the end-use energy data. Some of them might require only runtime record if the equipment consume constant power. I used to create 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. plan this way and try to find the solution for obtain the data for each end-use (fan, chiller, pump, light, etc.). Yes, 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). is not mandatory if you can find to solution to extract the end-use from the whole.
Good to see someone reading 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.! I am not sure too many folks submitting M&V Plans have done so.
Let me see if I can explain the the rationale for needing energy end use data. First of all I do not believe I ever said that projects had to install submeters. There are several ways to get energy end use data and 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). is just one of them. Sometimes it is not even actual energy use data as it could be data you would use to calculate energy use. You are correct that submeters or any direct measurements of energy use by end use are not required.
You will still need to calibrate your energy model by energy end use and have a data gathering plan in place to enable it. If you just calibrated to the monthly utility data by fuel type you could very easily be over predicting one end use and under predicting another and on balance the result may "appear" to match but it doesn't. You will find that it is virtually impossible to get each month to match within a reasonable range. When it does not match then you will need to have some kind of energy end use data to figure out the discrepancy. So the M&V Plan must include a methodology to gather the data needed by energy end use. It cannot be an afterthought that you will figure out after the results do not match. I can guarantee that the monthly data will not match in all cases so you are going to need some additional data. I think anyone who has calibrated an energy model would attest to this fact.
Recently we gathered some whole building data for a project we modeled that was an all electric building. Our model was within 6 kWhA kilowatt-hour is a unit of work or energy, measured as 1 kilowatt (1,000 watts) of power expended for 1 hour. One kWh is equivalent to 3,412 Btu. in the annual total energy consumption. Pretty good huh? Well it turns out we over predicted heating and under predicted cooling and on balance we got lucky. Even if each month was within range we would not have a calibrated model.
Unfortunately the language in the IPMVP is often a bit vague. It sets out broad goals and lets you figure out how to get there. Based on first hand experience I can tell you that you can't calibrate to the utility bills without calibrating to energy end use. Another way to think about it is to focus on the outcome. The energy model basically needs to be fully reflective of the way the actual building operates in order to be accurately calibrated. Without any energy end use data I would suggest that it would be impossible to do so.
Now the question becomes do we need to measure or meter each energy end use? Probably not. Very small ones that do not have a big impact on the overall energy use can be estimated. Maybe HVAC can be lumped together instead of trying to break out fans, pumps, heating and cooling. Some end uses could be derived from subtraction. This starts to get very project specific and how you do it depends on many factors.
If you can make the case in your M&V Plan that you can accurately calibrate the energy model without any energy end use data I would like to read how you will do it. If you think it through you will find that it is not possible unless you have clairvoyant energy modelers!
Marcus, thanks for your comment. I think it was very clarifying.
Then, the key point is how to calibrate the model by energy end use. We have some ideas:
2.Utility bills (in big projects utility bills could be differentiated by end use)
3.Data loggers that record energy use in different circuits according to the modeler's needs. Data could be recorded over a 7-day period (for example) and estimate the rest of the month.
Is this correct?
Someone could bring up more options?
Yes you are correct. Here are some others.
You can take spot measurements and use that data to calculate the energy use. For example, if I know that the lighting is a constant load (i.e. always on) and the schedule is consistent (on at the same time, off at the same time) I could use a clamp on meter, measure the wattage of each fixture type, count the fixtures and do the math.
I mentioned subtraction before. For example, if you meter lighting, hot water and HVAC you could derive plug loads by subtracting the submetered data from the utility meter data.
Some information can be obtained through interviews with operational staff. Things like occupancy and schedules are often obtained this way.
Commissioning activities often yield useful information what can be used in calibration.
Hand calculations could be used to verify very small constant loads if necessary.
And do not forget to calibrate the weather file to reflect the actual weather during the M&V period.
Absolutely helpful. Thanks again and I hope this helped other project teams to earn this credit.
Hi to all:
Please help me to clarify how the baseline model is defined for the M&V plan, it is clear that for the "actual case" the proposed model created for the EAc1 must be calibrated based on energy bills and measured performance during one year; but how is defined the baseline mode for comparision purposes? Should it be the proposed model delivered for EAc1? Should it be the baseline model delivered for EAc1? Should it be the proposed model delivered for EAc1 substracting the ECMEnergy conservation measures are installations or modifications of equipment or systems intended to reduce energy use and costs. implemented during the design and construction?
Thank you a lot for your comments
You basically take the calibrated model of the building and use that to create another Appendix G baseline model. This is your calibrated baseline for comparison.
So the adjusted schedules, utility rates, occupancy, etc. that must be identical are taken from the calibrated model and applied to the Appendix G baseline model.
Thank you for your soon feedback. What you indicate is what I understood but the Reference Guide says "Calibration is achieved by adjusting the energy simulation model to reflect actual operating conditions and parameters. Next, the conservations measures are removed from the model to define the baseline..." so, this sentence is kind of confusing because it seems that, for instance, if one of the conservation measures was to insulate the walls, then in the EAc5 baseline models the walls should appear without insulation (removing the conservation measures). Id appreciate if you can clarify further.
They mean that you should take the level of wall insulation from what you have in your building back down to the code minimum insulation value. An Appendix G baseline does just that.
Thank you Marcus
I mistakenly assumed that the baseline energy model for this credit would be the as-built simulation used to document compliance with EAp2 and EAc1 rather than the appendix G model. It made sense to me to compare actual energy use to projected energy use but I suppose in the end you end up with the same information.
I'm working on a residential project where the tenants do NOT pay their utility bills. The units are being individually sub-metered but the electric company does not provide a breakup per unit, instead a total bill goes to management. We are working to find out if a breakdown is possible, but in the meantime does anyone have experience creating an M&V plan for this type of project? Thanks.
We have explored the possibility of doing so on a couple residential projects. The complexity involved in gathering the necessary data is far higher with these types of projects and as a result each time we explored it it was abandoned as too difficult and expensive.
If you do pursue it I would suggest that perhaps you consider a sampling protocol for the units to keep the cost down.
Thanks, Marcus. I should clarify - the owner is willing to bear the cost. How do we get the information from the service provider if the tenant isn't responsible?
Getting the electric bills for some or all of the tenant spaces could be helpful but this is just a small part of the information you will need. Having the units sub-metered for electricity would be a good check against energy end use data you will need to gather from at least a sampling of units. If the units are sub-metered and the utility does not read them then you may need to read them yourself. Who owns the sub-meters?
As I said these projects are very difficult to properly implement M&V. In order to do this correctly you need to gather energy usage data for each energy end use, not just by fuel type. So lighting, heating, cooling, fans, plug loads, etc. This data can be gathered through building sub-meters installed by the owner or through a combination of short term trend meters and spot measurements. Sub-metering costs upfront but saves on labor during implementation. Gathering the data by hand (trend meters/spot measurements) is cheaper upfront but prohibitively expensive in all but relatively small buildings.
Just so your owner is aware, the metering and implementation cost to do this right for even a medium-size residential project could easily be $50,000 to $100,000. This is why most projects take the easy Option 3 point and run away from the M&V Plan. How many units and what is the square footage of your project?
I am working on a New Construction, 299 dwelling unit Apartment building, pursuing Option D. All apartments have their own electric meter, paid directly by the tenants. The apartments represent over 68% of the overall energy usage of the building (based on the proposed EAc1 simulation).
How is one supposed to calibrate the proposed simulation when 1) the owner doesn't receive any of the tenants energy bills 2) energy consuption/demand are greatly dependent on the tenants living habits (T'stat set points, occupancy, lifestyle, etc)? Obviously, some type of data sampling (for measurement) could take place, but it would also require the tenant submitting their electric bills (and hopefully a statement of t'stat 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.).
What is a recommended sampling rate? What is a realistic calibration tolerance when so much of the energy usage is dependent on occupant lifestyles?
I assume the sampling is used to project an average for the tenant spaces. If that is the case, what would trigger 'corrective actions' for tenants, since any deviations from projected saving could easily be assumed to be caused from Tenant lifestyle?
Any suggestions would be helpful.
I think that sampling could work for a project like that. Off the top of my head something like at least 10% of the units would need to be included. In addition to the overal electric usage you would need to figure out how to determine energy use by end use (lighting, HVAC, plug loads, etc.) within each of the sampled units. How you do that would need to be part of the Plan.
Typical tolerances are +-10% on a monthly basis for each energy end use.
Corrective actions are triggered if the savings are not within the tolerance following the calibration.
You would also need to extrapolate the results of the sample to the whole building and the entire building calibration would need to be within the established tolerance.
Unfortunately apartment building are much more difficult to do correctly than many other building types so this credit is not often pursued for this project type.
What are the pros and cons of having either the MEP engineers or 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. be responsible for documenting the M&V plan?
It depends on the individuals involved. It is very hard to make such generalizations but in general 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. is probably in a better position to do this work since they are already going be doing some of the work required. Be careful however that whoever does it must have a thorough and complete understanding of what needs to be done. M&V is not just some enhancement to the 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 and requires a somewhat different focus.
Who is doing the project's energy model? Typically whomever does the initial modeling would need to be involved in the M&V effort.
Is Option 3 (1 point) - Meet MPR 6 through compliance Opttion 1: Energy and Water Data Release Form.
Is option 3 available as a stand alone option or only as a 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. if Options 1 or 2 are achieved (i.e. do not need to achieve options 1 or 2 to get the one point).
You earn one point for EAc5 if you agree to provide your data under MPR 6.
So it is basically a free point by just complying with the MPRs
Also, how far back can this point be claimed? I am working on a project that is under the NC-2009 rating system and is currently under review, but project was registered a couple years ago and at the time we indicated that we would be attempting 3 points for EAc5. However it looks like we will be at 59 points (1 point short of our desired Gold). We have been in the process of trying to get together the M+V Plan but with a significant cost. It would be great if we can stop our efforts and get the additional point under EAc5 Option 3.
Any help you can provide is appreciated.
You could change your mind and pursue this option in the middle of your review.
Posted by Craig Graber, Atelier Ten:
Do you think that energy and water meters must actually be installed in order to achieve Option 3 (1 point) for the M&V credit? A project can gain exemption from MPR6 if meters are cost-prohibitive and not installed, but this approach seems too easy to qualify for the M&V point.
You need to provide the data. So if you claim the exemption you cannot earn the point.
Whole building utility meters are sufficient for this, correct? Just making sure I'm not missing something.
Yep that is correct.
IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. Vol III requires the M&V Plan to include the "expected overall M&V accuracy" (pg 9) and in Section 4.5.9 Option D: Uncertainty it refers to ASHRAE Guideline 14 for guidance. ASHRAE Guideline 14 gives an accuracy example of 10% uncertainty with 90% confidence - I have seen this accuracy statement in a M&V Plan before, but I doubt it was determined using the rigorous calculations in the Guideline. The Guideline is also not really meant to be used on new buildings...
Does anyone have experience determining an overall M&V accuracy, with or without ASHRAE Guideline 14?
Is a 10% uncertainty with 90% confidence statement typically used with Option D?
Any in-sight or guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Make sure you have both a monthly and annual target for each energy end use. It is not sufficient to have only an annual total accuracy target. Typically the targets are expressed as +-XX%. The target can vary but is usually in the 5% to 20% range depending on the situation and the project. +-10% is a very commonly used value in alignment with Guideline 14.
There was a post by Gord Shymko in one of these EAc5 credit forums with more detail on this issue. Might want to search the other versions of LEED under this credit.
Would GBCI accept meter data entry into Energy Star Portfolio Manager for 12 months period as an approved method for M&V for new construction?
Genko, please see Option 3 in the EAc5 credit language, above.
I'm working on an option D M&V plan according to LEED. The building is heated and cooled with gas heat pumpA type of heating and/or cooling equipment that draws heat into a building from outside and, during the cooling season, ejects heat from the building to the outside. Heat pumps are vapor-compression refrigeration systems whose indoor/outdoor coils are used reversibly as condensers or evaporators, depending on the need for heating or cooling. In the 2003 CBECS, specific information was collected on whether the heat pump system was a packaged unit, residential-type split system, or individual room heat pump, and whether the heat pump was air source, ground source, or water source., therefore the electricity consumption just includes fan/pump power, process load and lighting.
If I have just whole building electric meter, can I use the following declaration to divide the electricity consumption in three parts?
1. pumps and fans (constant volume fan) electricity consumption: calculated with energy demand and run time
2. process load electricity consumption: calculated with occupancy time and energy demand.
3. lighting electricity consumption: subtract from the whole building electricity consumption.
Is it necessary to divde the electricity consumption separately?
You will need to calibrate the model by energy end use on a monthly (and annual) basis.
1. if you trend this data you could figure out energy use
2. how will you determine energy demand? It will need to be measured.
3. subtraction from metered data is a viable method
Yes you would need to separate out the electric end uses in order to calibrate the model. Whole building metered data is not sufficient.
For the process load, I can know the energy demand for computers, printer, elevator, dishwasher etc. The computer energy consuption can be calculated with occupancy time, and the other energy consumption with operating time. But this method is not exact. Will this solution be accepted?
But how do you know the actual energy demand for those items? Rated and actual are often very different. You will need to measure actual consumption. This can be through direct sub-metering, spot measurements, short-term trends, derived from other measured data, etc. This cannot be based on the same method used to make the prediction. You need to measure something in the actual operation of the building to confirm the consumption you predicted. If it is not the same then you make adjustments (calibrate) to the model until the values match within your tolerance range.
Under Option D you are attempting to make adjustments to your model so that it matches the utility bills (monthly and annually by end use). So what information do you need in order to do that? Totals are not enough because even if you match exactly you could just be lucky. We did an energy model a couple of years ago that was within 6 kWhA kilowatt-hour is a unit of work or energy, measured as 1 kilowatt (1,000 watts) of power expended for 1 hour. One kWh is equivalent to 3,412 Btu. based on the first year of actual operation. When we looked at the monthly data we under-predicted heating and over predicted cooling and on an annual basis we just got lucky. But as you can see just because some numbers match does not mean we had a calibrated model. The whole point of Option D is to create that calibrated model which is then used to verify savings relative to a calibrated baseline.
If you understand what you are trying to do the question of what to meter and how to do it usually falls into place.
A project illumination system is controlled by a photovoltaic system. This system has a rechargeable battery as its primary energysource and as an auxiliary source it utilizes grid power.
Is necessary to individually measure the energy consumption of this system?
Very hard to say from the limited information provided. 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 you to measure every energy use. Can the use be derived by other means, say subtraction? Is the use virtually inconsequential (less than 1% of total consumption)?
Sounds like exterior lighting powered by a battery which is charged by photovoltaics and the system is controlled by a photocell? If so as a renewable energy source it should be measured. This does not means it needs to be metered. Can the usage be derived by other means?
Many project teams choose to monitor their water reduction strategies through a BMS program.
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
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 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.