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 also 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 monitoring devices to carry out 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. This credit is more commonly implemented 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 must include applicable end uses. However, the metering does not have to be permanent, and can include a sampling of units. 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 their 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. While not required, a BMS will streamline implementation of this credit and will likely be more cost-effective for larger buildings. A BMS will also offer long-term benefits during operations & maintenance.
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 using the project's actual 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.
In multifamily residential buildings where tenants do not pay utilities, install submeters for each unit or sample a representative number of units. 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. This includes occupancy, schedules, setpoint adjustments, and any other energy usage habits that may differ from default assumptions.
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.
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).
In addition to other helpful resources, the Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) shares example M&V plans for a variety of different approaches including Option B and Option D.
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.
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.
Sample LEED Online forms for all rating systems and versions are available on the USGBC website.
We are extremely late in a project and the team believes we intended to attempt EAc5 all along. When is it too late to achieve / document for EAc5 M&V for NC v2009? If we performed Enhanced Commissioning and have the measuring systems in place can we do some hard work to catch up and document this credit?
It is a construction credit so you can submit it late in the process.
If you have the necessary metering in place already then writing the Plan should not be too difficult to do during construction.
our project is a large and complex convention center remodel/expansion. We are proposing a metering strategy that is tailored to the way the building will be operated. The Metering Concept Narrative is over 20 pages long.
Our challenge - we would like to submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide to use the alternative compliance described in our Narrative. The vehicle that is available to us for submitting LEED CIRs limits us to a 5,000 characters box.
We have approached GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). about this, but got the stock reply of "how to submit for a CIR" which leads us back to the 5,000 character box.
(For some reason my earlier post about this issue has disappeared from this Forum.)
I think you just need to summarize the alternative compliance. A CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide is not intended to include a review of the project's documentation. A 20 page metering concept document is just too long to expect it to be a CIR. Summarize the approach and how it complies with the requirements 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..
Thanks Marcus - will do as you suggest.
I was looking for an example M&V Plan and found that the link to EVO example is broken. I am looking for the LEED 2009 New Construction, Option 1, Caliberated Simulation (Savings Estimation Method 2) Option D 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.. Can you steer me to a plan to reference?
I think this is the new link
Thanks Marcus! Happy Holidays!
Marcus, I tried that link, but got a 404 error message again. Anything else we can try?
Looks like the document has been removed. Contact EVO and ask what happened to it - http://evo-world.org/en/contact-us-mainmenu
There are sample M&V plans in the documentation toolkit above.
I realize that EAc Advanced Energy Metering is not listed in the v4 credits that you are allowed to use on v2009 projects but has anyone had any success utilizing the v4 metering language of "install ... metering equipment for any individual energy end uses that represent 10% or more of total annual consumption of the building" on a v2009 project? I have a circumstance where I'm working on two spec buildings on parallel schedules for a client where one is attempting v4 and the other is on v2009. The v4 project has a very limited electrical metering strategy because of the 10% language and the same electrical sub assumed that the same would be true for the v2009 project. In writing the M+V plan for the v2009 project our team is requesting meters to meet 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. requirements, but none of the end uses separately represent more than 10% of the anticipated total building energy usage as per the energy model. I understand v4 deviates from the IPMVP standard, but I'm just curious if anyone had any success with a similar approach.
As you are probably aware, the IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. does not require any metering. In general you do not have to monitor very small energy use. I would say good practice is any energy use less than 3% or so.
The v4 approach may or may not work on a 2009 project. Does the data gathering part of the plan provide enough information for enable the calibration of the energy model within reasonable levels of accuracy? This is all you have to do for IPMVP compliance on the data gathering side, just show that this is so.
The building we’re for which considering M&V will have 14 submetered apartments (which includes the condensing unit for each), as well as a house meter, for electricity (gas will be on one main meter). There is no BMS. Do we need to break down the electric usage further—differentiating between cooling, heating, lighting, plug load, appliances, etc.—or is it sufficient to have total numbers? Because there’s no BMS and the building won’t pay to install meters on each condensing unit, there’s really no way to break down the utility usage further than electric/gas, by month and by apartment. Thoughts?
No a BMS is not necessary.
You need to gather data in the building that will enable you to calibrate the energy model. So what data would you need? I would suggest that apartment electricity and whole building natural gas is no where close to what you would need to calibrate an energy model. How else could you get this data? You do not have to install permanent meters. You can use spot measurements and short term trending devices to gather data by hand. For a small library without BMS that is what we did. You might be able to figure out a sampling protocol so you would not need to break down the energy use in each apartment. Many ways to gather data. Find the one that makes the most sense for your project.
This is the first time I am dealing with this credit. I am confused with what the base mode (using option D) entails. Is it simply an Appendix G model calibrated in the same way the as built model is calibrated using actual usage schedules and plug load information etc, or is it something which can be arrived at through modifying the as built model. The credit language says "estimate through whole-building simulation, then subtract energy efficiency measure from measured building performance". I appreciate any help in this matter.
My apologies, I see that this has been addressed in earlier comments. Thanks!
Normally you calibrate the proposed model to the actual energy use data and then create the calibrated baseline from the proposed model.
Thanks for the response. Does that mean the baseline will have the same system types as proposed model. Since some time appendix G system mapping can result in system different than the proposed systems.
Also is corrective action required if the saving from the calibrated model (vs calibrated baseline) are less that the savings projected by the energy model created for EAc1?
Nope. The Baseline is according to Appendix G still. When you calibrate the proposed model quite often the primary aspect of the model you are calibrating are the numerous schedules. These schedules must be identical in both models. So you take the proposed model and back out all the energy saving strategies, including the HVAC system comparison if it is different.
Corrective action should address what you will do in the event that the savings do not meet the level of savings predicted. Basically you will then be using the model to examine other strategies to produce more savings. You are not obligated to implement them but you are obligated to study them.
One last question, are there any guidelines or requirements stating how close the calibrated model needs to be to the actual consumption numbers? In some cases, especially when 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). may not be available, it can be quite difficult to get the numbers close.
The IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. does not establish the degree of accuracy.
ASHRAE guideline 14 provides suggested ranges of error for various calibration situations. Additionally, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) includes recommended ranges of error (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf).
Keep in mind that to calibrate most energy models with any reasonable degree of accuracy you should have a target for each energy end use (lighting, heating, cooling, etc.) on a monthly and annual basis.
We have nearly completed a LEED Silver project and they are still asking for simulation calibration procedures, calibration parameters, frequency of measurement and calibration accuracy for the EAc5 section. I'm not sure exactly how the organize it and what is it that they are actually looking for. Does someone have an example of what they are looking for?
There are sample plans located in the Resources and Documentation Toolkit above.
If you are following Option D, you'll revisit your model in a year or so, after you've collected actual performance data for the building. You'll calibrate the model against the actual operating parameters. (This is the key action in the M&V process under Option D.) The M&V plan must indicate how you plan to calibrate, and how accurate you expect the calibration to be, among other items.
There is a good calibration procedure in the FEMP M&V Guide - http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf
M&V accuracy is well covered in ASHRAE Guideline 14.
The reviewers are simply looking to see if you understand M&V principles and are applying them in a logical manner.
Is it for calibration of just the meters since we are only using the main gas meter and the main electric meter to gather the data for energy usage. Or does it included the BAS system and it's components?
Those are two different issues. Calibrating meters and other measuring devices is just a good QC practice. This is a minor M&V issue. The calibration procedures refer to calibrating the energy model. This is a major M&V issue.
By the way it is very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to calibrate an energy model without gathering some energy use data beyond the main meters. If you are gathering enough data through the BAS that can be converted to energy use, taking spot measurements and/or using short term trending meters post-occupancy it can be done but there is typically a lot of labor required to do so.
Expanding on Marcus's excellent response.
To meet the requirements 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. Option D, your team must take the model that was developed as part of the design process and compare it against your actual building performance. To do this in an appropriate way, you will "calibrate" the model by adjusting assumptions made in the original model, such as operating schedules, plug and process loads, infiltration rates, weather conditions, etc. This work needs to be performed by someone qualified to do it - often the original modeler, occasionally the Commissioning Agent.
The reviewer is looking for details of this process, as proposed by your team. Who, What, When and How? Also, who is paying for it?
If this is not what you are planning to do, then you don't meet the credit requirements.
I'm still not completely clear on the reporting commitment for energy and water usage data. The responses to prior questions about this subject indicate a reporting commitment of 5 years if Option 1 in PI Form 1 and Option 3 in EA c5 form are checked, but if Option 2 in PI Form1 and an M&V plan are submitted instead the reporting period is much shorter. But the language early in Item #6 in PI Form 1 clearly states "at least 5 years" so the impression is created that the owner ( barring exemptions due to lack of meters ) will necessarily be reporting to the USGBC for 5 years as part of meeting the MPR. Am I misinterpreting something?
The reporting of your data and the M&V period are two separate issues.
MPR #6 requires that you provide and report the data for 5 years. If you do so following Option 1 you can earn a point either within EAc5 or, if already pursuing Option 1 or 2 under EAc5, as a ID credit. Under Option 2 in MPR #6 you still have to provide the data for 5 years.
Marcus, thank you for your response. To make sure I understand: If we are already pursuing Option 1 or 2 under EAc5 AND we choose to register the project with Portfolio Manager, we get an ID point for the Portfolio Manager? If we do not do Portfolio Manager, we still have the MPR requirement to report for 5 years - what is the typical means for the client to provide the data for 5 years?
Yes you get 3 points for EAc5 and one ID point.
Typically projects use Portfolio Manager to provide the data. I am not sure what other means are provided under Option 2. I do know that they ask for a release to be signed allowing them to access the information from the utility as a last resort. There is probably a spreadsheet they ask you to complete but I would need to do some digging to confirm.
I greatly appreciate Marcus' experience and time with this issue through his replies above. However, I am unsure of being able to meet EAc5. In my Ref Guide dated June 2010 it does not list an option 3 for EAc5. Nor do I see any option #s under MPR #6. For MPR#6 I only see that projects need to provide energy & water data for 5 years.
My question is, can a project achieve 1 point under EAc5 via Option #3 (only) if providing one year of data through portfolio manager, for energy and water use, if the project does NOT follow either Option 1 or option 2 under EAc5?
I'm assuming not, but if so, I'd be so glad to know.
No. The project must meet MPR #6. If it meets MPR #6 through Option 1 it can earn a point under EAc5. This is Option 3 under EAc5 which was added at a later date than the Reference Guide you have. It is probably in an addenda.
I don't see any Options listed under MPR #6 at:
Do you know where I can see the Options under MPR#6?
The options are within the PIf1 form in LEED Online.
Thank you so much Marcus!
I greatly appreciate your time and knowledge. The last LEED project that I worked on before this one was back in 2012.
Our client chose Option 2 on the PIf1 and the form has been approved. They have decided to pursue the 1 point available in EAc5 for choosing Option 1 in PIf1. Is it acceptable to update PIf1 with their new choice and submit it again in construction review along with EAc5?
The project has not installed whole project water meter(s) and cannot comply with MPR 6. Therefore, the project is exempt from the MPR 6 requirement to provide USGBC with water usage data. The project is a large regional user of domestic water, which it purchases from the City for its entire property, tenants, and users. An agreement is
in place with the utility provider which precludes the use of sub metering of water and therefore, prohibits the installation of any individual water meter to monitor the project's water usage. Would any of this preclude the project from achieving 1 point for EAc5 Option 3?
Sure you could change it and resubmit, however, you can't earn it without agreeing to provide your energy and water data.
I realize they would have to report via ES Portfolio Manager but they would only be able to report energy, not water use. In PIf1 they are exempt from reporting water use so I need to know if that exemption carries over to EAc5 Option 3. I assume it does but need confirmation. Thanks!
Sorry if i was not clear. It does not carry over. You cannot earn EAc5 Option 3 without the ability to provide the water data. The exemption excuses you from having to meet MPR#6. When claiming this exemption you cannot earn the point available under EAc5 Option 3.The difference is that the MPR is not worth any points. You can't earn a point for not doing what is required to earn it.
Thanks Marcus for your clarification, very much appreciated.
If a LEED project boundary only includes a building addition, would the Addition natural gas, electricity and water utilities need to be separately submetered if fed from main building utility services to comply with EAc5 Option 3 or could main building metered consumption be used and proportionally divided up on square foot basis?
We would like to know if the project can obtain its LEED certification prior to submitting the Final M&V Report, which is dependent upon 1 year of post-occupancy energy use data. Can anyone help me understand the timing of the building certification when there is an outstanding LEED submittal for this credit? Thanks.
The submittal for LEED is the M&V plan. The final report does not have to be sent to USGBC.
Thank you Marcus! That makes sense and now we can proceed with confidence.
We are working on a Residential New Construction Project, compound of more than 100 apartments, pursuing Option D - Calibrated Simulation. All apartments will have their own utility electric meter, and the associated bills will be paid directly by the tenants.
Energy consumption related with the common areas and shared equipment will be metered separately using electric sub-meters for HVAC, Lighting and Process Loads...
In order to expand 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). inside the apartments we are evaluating to use the Lighting Central Management System monitor the lighting consumption of each apartment. This system could be extended to include monitoring of the HVAC equipment, so you could know the running time of the equipment and estimate the energy use. This option represents an indirect measurement of the energy end-uses of each apartment.
Since 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. only mentions main meters and sub-meters in the Calibrated Simulation option, is the indirect measurement proposed valid to comply the requirements of the protocol?
Any clarifications would be helpful in order to establish an option for sub-measurement inside the apartments.
Measuring a parameter that enables you to calculate or derive energy use by end use is perfectly acceptable.
Multifamily residential is significantly more difficult that many other building types to effectively implement Option D. Make sure you cover all the significant energy end uses like domestic hot water, fans, pumps, etc. Another possibility would be to base the calibration on a sampling of units and extrapolate. This increases the margin of error but I think could work with a good sampling technique.
Does anyone have any experience with projects where a GCA General Contractor (GC) manages, coordinates, and oversees building construction; may perform some construction tasks; and is responsible for hiring and managing subcontractors. has been given the responsibility for implementing the M&V credit using Option B? This is the case on one of my projects where I am acting as a consultant to the GC. The GC was hired after the design was completed. Does this seem like a plausible way to approach this credit?
In a word - no.
First of all Option B is very, very rarely a viable option for new construction/major renovation projects.
Second, under Option D, M&V is typically delivered by a specialty consultant or a consultant working with the owner's facility staff. In either case the firm that did the original energy model needs to be involved to calibrate the model or someone else needs to get a copy and take over.
I suppose what you describe could work but it is very unusual and in general makes little logical sense to me.
Thanks, Marcus for your speedy response. This is also my impression but the designer is unfortunately insisting otherwise. I thought I would check to see if anyone else has ever ran into something like this.
Sounds like perhaps the designer is pushing something they do not fully understand on to the contractor. Timing does not make much sense either since the M&V period typically ends about 18 months to 2 years after occupancy and the contractor is usually gone by then.
It is not unusual that folks do not understand this credit and the guidelines within 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.. In large part this is why it was removed from LEED v4.
Similar to the initial inquiry, I am involved on a project where the GCA General Contractor (GC) manages, coordinates, and oversees building construction; may perform some construction tasks; and is responsible for hiring and managing subcontractors. is contractually obligated to "meet the requirements" of this credit, among others, and there is some discussion [and tension] around what the "develop and implement" language within the LEED reference guide implies as it relates to IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. Option D and EAc5 requirements. In my experience, post-occupancy M+V activities, including energy model calibration, are additional services typically performed by the firm who developed the EAp2 / EAc1 energy model and the plan is merely a written set of intentions on behalf of the client, not legally binding nor legally obligating.
With that said, we developed a plan that that is consistent with IPMVP Option D and it describes who we intend to perform the calibration and how we intend to handle any corrective actions with the assumption that they were both additional services. However, the client is insisting that these services [both corrective actions and calibration] are included within the GC’s current contract because they are necessary to "meet the requirements” of EAc5. I'm curious if you could help me understand what is more typical in the industry beyond my own personal experience and if the IPMVP Disclaimer saying "the IPMVP does not create any legal rights or impose any legal obligations on any person or other legal entity” has any implications onto what is “required” by this credit.
I can see the case that the calibration may be included in what is “required” but am having a hard time with the corrective action. Thoughts?
Your experience aligns with my own.
You'll have to ask a lawyer about the disclaimer. I'm not stepping into that one.
The corrective action portion is really just using the M&V effort to identify and correct any operational issues and estimating any additional energy savings using the calibrated energy model.
To simply meet the "requirements of this credit" you can simply follow Option 3 which the owner has to do anyway under MPR #6.
Thanks Marcus --
We are in a tricky possition, to be sure so I don't blame you for saying away from the disclaimer. Believe me, I understand that we aren't lawyers.
And I should have clarified, the GCA General Contractor (GC) manages, coordinates, and oversees building construction; may perform some construction tasks; and is responsible for hiring and managing subcontractors. is obligated to achieve 3 points under EAc5 otherwise Option 3 would be a good point.
i'm studying the protocol of measurement & verification, and checked out some necessary points which must be in the plan but did not quite understand.
The points are:
- Specification of the methods to be used to deal with missing or lost metered data.
- Expected overall accuracy and anticipated areas of error susceptibility and magnitude of the sensitivity.
- Specification of whether Method 1 or Method 2 will be used for savings estimation.
- Specification of the approach to be used if estimation of long-term savings is required. This should be provided for each major enduse
that is intended to be estimated or derived rather than directly monitored (For example, if there are no data loggers or meters on the
building plug loads, and energy savings are expected related to the building plug loads, the M and V Plan should specifically identify
how these loads and any savings related to these loads will be estimated).
Thanks for all!
- How will you deal with lost or missing data? It happens all the time. In general the proper way to deal with it is to extrapolate or replicate if possible.
- See ASHRAE Guideline 14. Overall accuracy is usually a +-%.
- Method 2 is required for LEED projects.
- This is about the gathering of the data to be used to calibrate the simulation. You need to gather data that enables you to calibrate the energy model by energy end use on a monthly and annual basis. You can gather that data many different ways - direct measurement, derived via subtraction, spot measurements, short-term trending devices, measurement of a parameter used to calculate energy use, etc. So how are you going to use the data you have collected in order to determine if you have calibrated the energy model within your expected accuracy by end use on a monthly and annual basis?
We are working on a NC project, in Turkey.
Is our Project is eligible for option 3?
Can you give some explanations?
The project agrees to provide energy and water performance data to USGBC via Portfolio Manager (PM). Anyone, anywhere can access and enter project data in PM.
I am currently training and researching in order to become involved in the M&V process for various new construction buildings within the near future.
The area I am having a particular difficult time finding reference material for is determining meter locations. I have found some best practice guides and have perused the ASHRAE guideline 14 book, as well as read a significant amount 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. volume III. I am having difficulty finding anything with specific reference on how to determine 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). locations based off of a single line diagram, or other something similar.
If anyone might have some advice, I would greatly appreciate it.
For LEED projects you are following Option D, Calibrated Simulation. In simple terms you measure the data you will need to enable you to calibrate the energy model with the actual energy use. You are gathering data for each of the significant energy end uses (lighting, heating, cooling, fans, plug loads, etc.) since you cannot calibrate a model based on a comparison of annual fuel use alone. This could involve energy meters for some or all of the end uses. Putting an energy meter on every end use can become costly so quite often monitoring points are used to gather data (like run time for a fan motor) and then energy use is derived instead of directly measured. Sometimes energy use for some end uses can be derived by subtraction (for example in a packaged roof top unit you can meter the whole unit, measure fan run time, derive the fan energy use and subtract it to determine cooling energy use). Sometimes energy use can be derived by taking spot measurements or with short term trending devices and using that data to derive energy use.
Our goal on every M&V job is to figure out the least expensive way to gather the data we need on each project. Quite often the way we gather data will vary significantly from project to project. I do not think that you will find what you are seeking in a reference. The documents you read outline the principles to follow - you then have to apply them.
Appreciate your easy to understand explanation of M&V. If you have a BAS, are there still times you need meters ?? The project is a hotel convention center with retail & commercial office space. Ownership has a very sophisticated facility engineer group at each complex, but has never pursued this credit or used the BAS to compare actual to the energy model.
It depends on the points you program into the BAS. If the BAS can gather all the data you need then there is no need for separate meters. Most of our M&V projects are small to medium commercial. They typically have some meters and we gather some data with the BAS. It also depends on the BAS capabilities as well.
We have developed a M&V plan for a mixed use Multi tenant high rise with commercial space in the building with 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.) as the framework for this plan. IPMVP Volume III 2003, Option D, Calibration Simulation, has been selected as the method of M&V for this project. This entails the use of an energy simulation model to estimate the annual building energy consumption of the facility. We feel we have a good plan moving forward however there has been concern from the our client and team as to whether or not USGBC will approve of our approach. I know that this approval does not happen until the project is fully completed but is there any recommendation on getting some guidance from USGBC on approach and published data for certified projects with specifics on points?
Thank you in advance for any guidance
I am not aware of any pre-review or guidance from USGBC beyond what is in the referenced materials. Review of the entire Plan is beyond a LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. but you could try to summarize the approach and seek approval that way.
There are consultants who provide such pre-review services (full disclosure - we are one of many who do so and I apologize for the blatant self-serving suggestion but I do think this may be your best option). It should only take an hour or so to review the plan and offer recommendations for improvement.
You could also search for copies of M&V Plans that have been approved in the past to see if your approach is close.
Not sure what you mean by "specifics on points"?
Basically the reviewers are looking to make sure you have a good solid understanding 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., that you are collecting sufficient data to calibrate the energy model, that you understand what it takes to calibrate a model, and that the Plan addresses all of the items in Section 3.2.
The query is with reference to achieving EA Cr5: Measurement & Verification for projects wherein Option D and Option B 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. Vol.III is not possible.
In lieu of same, please confirm if in such case can any project achieve 1 credit only by compliance to MPR6 requirements of sharing the whole building energy & water usage data. Earlier version of LEED template did have provision of this as option 3. Please confirm if this scenario still prevails.
The project is ready to share the Energy and water performance via Energy Star Portfolio manager but currently have only main meters installed to measure the total building energy and water usage and do not have sub-meters in place to measure the utility level consumption. If answer to the above query is yes, please clarify the following relevant to the compliance of MPR6 and thereby EA Cr5 requirements.
• Can provision of only main meters for total energy and water consumption suffice the requirement of MPR6? As energy profile can be created in portfolio manager only using the total energy and water consumption values, the need for additional energy sub-meters could be avoided thereby reducing the initial cost for the client.
• In case provision of sub-meters are mandatory for MPR6 and sub-meters are not installed during the project submissions to LEED, please provide a specific timeline, if any, within which the sub-meters should be installed on-site.
Yes you can still earn one point for Option a in MPR 6.
No 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). required.
I'm now working on a group project certification based on three buildings.
The HVAC System has a central cooling system that serves only the three buildings.
The central cooling system is located within the leed boundary of the group certification.
According to http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs7671.pdf may I exclude to consider the central cooling system as a DES?
(in other words, can I assume that my case is equivalent to what described at page 6 of the document linked above: "Exception: When several buildings are grouped as part of a single LEED project, including a central plant building, the central plant is defined as a DES only if it currently serves or is expected to serve other buildings not within the LEED project boundaries for the project"?)
Are you wanting to exclude something (like the central plant building) from your LEED certification? Excluding something raises overall questions about the LEED submission beyond just the modeling issue.
Are you modeling all three buildings in one model or each building separately?
Have you seen the new campus guidance from USGBC issued April 1, 2014?
Based on the excerpt you provided from the DESv2 it sounds like the plant can't be considered as a DES since it does not serve other building outside the LEED boundary.
thank you for you reply.
Yes, I know the last update of LEED Campus Guidance.
I include this central plant in the LEED certification.
I think to model the three buildings separately (it seems to be too complex to model them together for the software's capacity).
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2016 – BuildingGreen, Inc.