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 Opttion 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."
Took me a while to track down the answer.
Within the general facility information section of Portfolio Manager there is a box labeled “Unique Building Identifier”. This is were projects should enter their LEED project # and name within the general facility information section if they cannot name the project identical to the project name submitted for LEED.
How can I apply for Option 3, if my project doesn't a whole building utility meter installed? Our LEED building is located on a "campus". So the campus does have a utility meter installed.
My question is, can we use a submeterSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy or water use within a building attributable to specific end uses such as tenant spaces, or subsystems such as the heating component of an HVAC system., installed at the LEED building in order to provide USGBC with the utility data?
The campus 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.(s) for your building would still count as "whole building meters" for your project building, even though they are not owned by the utility.
As an example, many campus buildings could be served from a combination of electricity, steam, hot water, chilled water, domestic water, etc., and each of these that you have would require a submeter that serves only the project building.
Say you have a fairly complex project, but the facility engineers only want to sub-meter 7 electrical systems for measurement and verification. The rest of the energy will be monitored through the utility meters and calibrated to the M&V plan. Would this be option B, D,a hybrid of both or unacceptable for this LEED credit?
Ted, I sent you a message off-line with some greater detail, but the short version is that for a complex building Option D is preferred due to the interaction between ECMs.
Under Option D there is flexibility to focus on monitoring the variables that have the greatest impact on ECM performance and energy use in the building.
To earn this credit all we submit is the plan which basically says we're going to recalibrate and we'll deal with any problems later, right? Is there any backcheck from GBCI on this? I know they can get the records if they want it, but I'm surprised that they don't require a report indicating what corrective action was taken. Is this planned for the future?
Yep just the M&V Plan for now. It is obviously dishonest at best to submit a plan with no intentions of implementing it, but there is no current requirement to submit the results of its implementation.
The next version of LEED requires that executed contracts are in place to implement the plan.
Follow-Up question - How is the column titled "Metered Energy Use" in the table on the top of the form completed without results?
Are you referring to the credit form? If not could you be more specific about which form you are referring to?
Yes I am referring to the credit form. The Metered Energy Use column totals the metered energy use and the Percent metered end-use energy use - without an input in this column the form does not show Points Documented under the Summary section.
Sorry Todd I am just not seeing what you are seeing. Both v3 and v4 of the credit form for this NC credit do not include a table at all for any of the options so I am confused. Are you sure you are posting under the right rating system and credit?
Marcus - The project is registered under NC 2009. In the lower right corner of the form it says Version 0.2.3 Is it possible I'm using an outdated form? i had that on another credit. Thanks for your help!
Yes those forms are the BETA forms. The newer versions don't even ask for this information. You can request a form upgrade through the feedback button in LEED Online v3. Include the specific prerequisite / credit form, project number, project name, and rating system when requesting an upgrade. Alternatively, the updated form may be downloaded via the Sample Forms Download link within LEED Online and uploaded to this credit.
The only issue to be aware of when requesting the form upgrade is if the form gets information from other forms then that functionality can be lost and you can have major headaches trying to get the forms to work in LEED Online. It does not appear that v3 or v4 of the form for this credit would cause any problems but the safest way may be to download the new form, fill it out and upload it.
I'll take the safe route - thanks again for your help!!
Please verify the reporting period is 1 year and not 2. Your sample M&V plan talks about a two year M&V period.
Are templates available for data reporting and is there a required format? Is supporting documentation required to substantiate data?
Can you explain how data reporting works with Energy Star Portfolio Mananger?
Yes it is only 1 year. You can find templates in some sample plans or can create your own. No required format and they are usually pretty simple.
For the credit you only need to submit the M&V Plan. No data yet collected typically, so no supporting documentation needed.
Not sure I understand the last question. Can you clarify Sandra?
How is this credit addressed in a multi residential complex (77 student apartments) where tenants pay their own energy bills?
Since the difficulty is gathering data from 77 distinct units I would probably think about developing a sampling protocol to apply and then extrapolate. If the result is not within the expectations then sample some more.
Do you have any sample of Measurement and Verifiation report for Option B?
Thank you and cheers!
Option B would very rarely apply to a new construction project. Any project claiming energy savings for improvements in building envelope or lighting cannot use it as these are interactive measures (they affect other systems). I have reviewed thousands of projects submitted for LEED and have not seen one successfully use Option B. Unless you are that extremely rare case use Option D.
Thank you for your helpful and immediate answer. I am not familiar with this credit, we had never attempted it before. I don't know how complex or simple it might be, is there a way you could provide us with a sample of an approved format for the submittal of this credit? It sounds, by 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. guidelines that it would be a very short document (about 2 or 3 pages). I don't know if I'm getting it right.
You will need to prepare a M&V Plan. A sample plan outline is in the Documentation Toolkit above. A reasonable M&V Plan is typically a minimum of 8 to 10 pages, not included appendices.
The Plan content depends on the approach to data gathering which needs to be thought through and very detailed. Most of the rest is pretty straight forward from there. Make sure to thoroughly read 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 find many folks do not really understand it and this is evident in their M&V Plans. It is about verifying predicted savings. So gather the data necessary, post-occupancy, to verify the energy modeling inputs, calibrate the model to the actual bills and then create a calibrated baseline. The difference is your actual savings. Be sure to include an action plan in the event your savings do not agree with your prediction.
I have some questions regarding Option D - Calibrated Simulation:
1) Can we use the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 baseline used in EA cr 1 -Option1 as the M&V baseline ?
2) I understand from the above that one of the ways to measure the savings is to substract the metered post-construction energy use from the energy use of the calibrated baseline model (i.e. baseline calibrated with actual weather and occupancy). If this is the case, then I do not need to calibrate the proposed model as well and compare it to the actual energy consumption ? do I ?
Thanks for the help.
Yes, 90.1-2007 is an acceptable baseline.
In order to produce a calibrated baseline model you will first have to calibrate the proposed model. So you must calibrate the proposed model with the actual utility bills in order to determine if you have achieved an acceptable level of calibration.
Thanks for your reply.
I presume that if the results from the calibrated proposed model differ from the annual energy costs (deduced from bills) by over 10%, we will need to develop an corrective action plan, am I right ?
Your M&V Plan should contain a general corrective action plan in the event that the savings are not verified. The Plan would also spell out the acceptable accuracy of the calibration. Once calibrated within the acceptable accuracy the actual savings are then determined by comparing the calibrated model to a calibrated baseline model. If the actual savings differ from the predicted savings by a significant amount then the corrective action plan kicks in.
I'm in the process of creating a M&V plan for a retirment building which is basically a MURB. Determining what to meter on the central plant is relative straight forward, however the problem I'm having is the suites will not be individually monitored due to the nature of the building however the majority of the lighting and heating load will be consumed by each suite via an individual floor electrical panel.
I'd appreciate someones experience on this as to how to monitor these loads?
For M&V you do not need to measure energy use by the suite. You want to measure by energy end uses like lighting, heating, etc. Sounds like you are headed in the right direction just make sure your measurement scheme can account for all of the energy end uses either directly or indirectly.
Exactly how you would measure what, depends upon many factors. I always try to find the least expensive method (permanent sub-meter, spot measurements, short-term trending, etc.) to get the data I need.
We're designing a food processing plant that will have systems in place to monitor the overall loads of the entire building. The drives read the information from all MCCs and determine the overall electrical consumption of our process lines, the HVAC, the office areas and, if approved by the client, overall lighting system. However, this system does not break down the consumption of each individual equipment or individual room and from what I see in the template provided in this website for "Option D Whole Building Approach" I'm concerned that we may not fully comply with the credit. Adding individual submeters to all equipment on an industrial plant would increase the budget significantly.
Any thoughts applicable to the exclusive nature of our proect?
You do not need to measure by individual room or piece of equipment. You simply need to be be able to measure in aggregate by energy end uses (i.e. lighting, plug loads, fans, etc.) that correspond with the energy modeling results. So measuring by area is typically not very useful as this adds disparate loads together which is not typically how the spaces are modeled. Your measurement plan seems to mix the two (areas and end uses) which will likley not enable the proper calibration of the modeling results.
Does the re-calibration of the as-built design energy model and the baseline model need to be done monthly during the 12 mos. M&V period, and then corrective action taken monthly based on how close the historical data is to the modeled data, or does the building just wait until 12 mos. of data is collected and then go through the re-calibration of the two models and "corrective action" taken? If it's the latter case, then is the only requirement DURING the 12 mos. performance period to collect the energy usage data, whether through meters or through other variables from which the energy use of systems can be calculated?
No the calibration does not need to be undertaken every month during the M&V period. Yep the data gathering is the primary activity during the M&V period. Some of the calibration activities could begin during this period but that is not required.
Once you do calibrate the data be sure to closely examine the monthly actual vs predicted data to ensure a reasonable degree of accuracy. Do not rely soley on annual comparisons of total energy use alone.
The credit requirements say, "The M&V period must cover at least 1 year of post-construction occupancy". This however, isn't saying that we can't complete this credit until one year after substantial completion is it? Per the LEED credit template, it seems to me that you have the proposed energy use and the metered energy use information to provide to see where you are at, and the PLAN states that you will calibrate and compare for up to a year, etc. However, if you are not in that % of compliance, the template won't award you the points, and you'll have to address the problem, per the plan, until you get into compliance (which means you might have to wait a month or two as energy reporting is available after any necessary corrections). Thoughts?
No, the credit is still awarded based on the M&V Plan, not the results of the M&V work. Sounds like there is a potential glitch in the form if it won't award the point due to a low percentage of metered energy end-use. In fact 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 that you have permanent meters on any energy end-uses. Some of those energy end uses can be derived through other means such as calculations, spot measurements and short-term trending.
You are correct in your assumption about the template regarding energy use information and its relationship to the M&V Plan. If the % compliance is in fact the reason why the form does not register the point then I think the form has a glitch. As I understand it GBCI is still working on the forms and correcting the outstanding issues associated with them.
I believe that the inclusion of reporting for actual energy use in the letter templates is an error. I have advised the USGBC staffers accordingly.
I am not sure it is an error but I do agree that it would be redundant with the content of the M&V Plan and as such not really necessary.
I'm new to this site, and while not new to LEED projects have never pursued EA Credit 5. The more I dig into it the more vague everything becomes, and more confused I get! Is it required anywhere on what kind of metering must be done and how often? Can we use information from the utility companies meter or do we have to install a "smart" meter upstream that sends information digitally to someone? The utility company may or may not provide information digitally back to owner, and if so may only be monthly with their billing. Everying thing I read about this point tends to refer to the M&V Plan, which we are creating. So I'm still now sure what is required by this credit. We are looking at the Option B path. For this specific project the only thing that will use gas is the boiler plant. To know the gas use of the boilers, we only need to measure gas use to the plant, which will be done by the utility company. So I'm not sure if we even need to install another meter.
The place to start with this credit is not the Reference Guide, but 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 document itself. It can be downloaded from the EVO website - evo.org and follow the links to IPMVP Vol. III, 2003. A thorough read should answer most of your questions. The RG is only intended to be a guiding supplement.
No metering is required but is often a good idea.
The utility meter is fine.
Make sure Option B is the right one. This option is rarely used for LEED projects since there are usually several interactive energy saving strategies used. Option D is far more common.
Doesn't sound like you need another gas meter. Majority of the metering is typically done on the electrical end.
...and changes on the way.
http://www.cagbc.org/database/rte/SBSSick building syndrome (SBS): Building whose occupants experience acute health and/or comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent therein, but where no specific illness or cause can be identified. Complaints may be localized in a particular room or zone, or may spread throughout the building. A pattern of health complaints related to poor indoor air quality in a specific building, but without a known cause or a definite, diagnosable pattern of symptoms.%20Gordon%20Shymko%20Presentation%20[Compatibility%20Mode].pdf
Michael, I couldn't get this link to work. Can you try posting it again? Maybe use a link-shortening service like http://bit.ly
I've just checked the LEEDonline submittal form for this credit (which by the way mentions a previously unknown EAp2: Minimize Energy Performance prerequisite, ha, ha) which has the following wording:
"The energy model is calibrated to actual energy consumption by end use.
The responsible party for calibrating the energy model is identified in the
Surely here is another typo which should read:
"The energy model WILL BE calibrated to actual energy consumption by end use."
You should get a project checklist (if you don't have one already) that lists all the possible credits and required prerequisites in all the LEED catagories. I've found that the prerequisites require a lot more work than the actual credits (at least for WE and EA). And, I just found out recently that ALL the prerequisites in EVERY catagory must be met in order to get LEED certification, even if you aren't attempting points in some of the catagories. Are we having fun yet? ; )
Yes, I would agree that you found a typo, Jean. Or if I were being generous, just vague wording.
Hannah, you're right! WEp1 and EAp2 are particularly important prereqs and the documentation for the associatd credits WEc3 and EAc1 is completely derivative from them.
We are pursuing EA points under the Core Performance Guide (CPG) alternate compliance path. One of the requirements of the CPG (1.7 Performance Data Review) requires that specific metering equipment (pulse meters) be installed to generate hourly energy consumption data. While it is preferable that pulse meters be installed on each system, the CPG only requires a whole building pulse meter.
We will probably only be installing a single pulse meter on the main electric meter to meet this requirement. How much additional work would have to be performed to meet the LEED M&V requirements?
That's a hard question to answer, as it depends on your approach to M&V selected in your M&V plan. If you are planning to use permanent meters to collect data, you probably need meters for all major end uses (lighting, HVAC, plug loads, etc. If you are using gas or oil for heating you also need meters on that.
As I mentioned above (12/02/09 comment), temporary metering is also an option.
You really need to first develop your M&V plan, then design your metering scheme based on that plan.
Is it true that if you did not do a full building simulation in Credit EA 1: that you would be using Option B? We have a fairly small office building and I am assuming that tthe addition of submeters is going to be cost prohibative. Is there anyway to do manual checks of the systems?
You're asking a lot of different questions here. First, No, you would not automatically use Option B. Doing a building simulation creates a baseline for M&V. You can use other sources for that and use Option D. Since you have a smaller building you can use Option B. If you are going to rent out spaces and charge them for the energy they use you may want to use submeters if your Utility company lets you. otherwise just have the Utility company put in one meter for the entire building. What is really important here above everything else, If you are going for this credit, is to have a good M& V plan. See the post above by Christopher Schaffner.
Option B is based on adding submeters and isolate the energy use, while Option D is based on simulation. But as you learn more about Option D, it appears that it also needs for submeters.
My question is if submeters will be needed for both, what's the differnce between the two? I know option D involves the simulation, but if submitters will be still needed, why do we choose Option d over Option B?
Option B looks at individual energy efficiency measures (EEMs) in isolation. Option D looks at the whole building. Option B is better for retrofits, where perhaps only a few EEMs have been implemented. Option D is usually better for a new building, where many of the EEMs might interact.
Many EEMs interact. What does that mean? Let's look at an example.
If I reduce the lighting power density in my project, I save electricity that would otherwise be used by the lights. But because lights also emit heat, I also affect my heating and cooling loads. To understand the full impact, I need to look at all these loads. Option D is really the only way to fully assess the performance of an "interactive" EEM.
For this credit (EA CR 5), we will be metering the steam and water use for the mechanical system, but I'm not sure if that is enough to receive this credit. Do we also need to meter the electricity and fuel usage to generate the steam which would add significant cost to the project and in our case will likely be prohibitive? Any information or experience with this credit is appreciated.
Metering at the building level is typically not sufficient to meet the credit. You need tto develop an M&V plan that outlines how data will be collected, and how it will be analyzed.
I find that this point is universally confusing for project teams -- even if they've taken the time to read through 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.. Also, the more people I ask about this, the more variety of response I get.
Can you provide an idea of the level of data resolution required to successfully do the M&V? For example, do you need to submeterSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy or water use within a building attributable to specific end uses such as tenant spaces, or subsystems such as the heating component of an HVAC system. lighting or plugs or HVAC? Do you have to break these down by end uses (offices, common spaces, etc.)? Do you need data on an hourly or daily basis?
Because intuitively, if all you are trying to do is calibrate your energy model, you could, in theory, do so with just the whole building usage on a monthly basis.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks for your question. M&V is definitely one of the most confusing credits in LEED. I hope that we can make it a little clearer for 2012.
It also has wide variance in responses by the USGBC reviewers. I've had M&V plans accepted on one project, then had virtually the same plan rejected on a similar project. I think some of the reviewers are confused too.
The point I was trying to make in the previous post is that the credit is really about the plan, not the metering.
When a team approaches this credit, the first question should be: "Who will use the data collected, and how will it be used?" It may be facilities staff, it may be a third party consultant. If the answer is "no one", then I think you move on, and don't attempt the credit.
Once the team has identified the reason for doing M&V and the people who will actually use the information gathered, the next step is to put together the plan. While LEED allows 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, most projects will likely use Option D - Calibrated Simulation. Option B is only appropriate when energy efficiency measures (EEMs) can be viewed in isolation. But most EEMs are interactive with other systems - for example, lighting improvements affect cooling loads. With interactive EEMs your appropriate path is Option D.
The plan should identify:
-energy information to be gathered
-method of gathering energy information
-entity who will gather the info
-entity who will calibrate the simulation
-source of the original simulation
Since an M&V plan is basically a promise to do something in the future, I've found that reviewers look on your plan more favorably if it gets into specifics about the source of funding for the M&V effort. If there is an existing contract for the M&V include that. A plan that doesn't identify who, when or how is generally not going to be accepted.
As to the specific question of metering, your M&V effort is usually going to want to be able to identify the energy consumption of various end uses in the building. There are a number of potential approaches to this. Sub-metering is certainly one. If you are going to sub-meter, this needs to be carefully coordinated with the electrical system design. There are now panel boards that offer built-in metering capability on a circuit by circuit basis - you may want to look at those.
Temporary metering is also an acceptable approach. Keep in mind you are promising future metering in your plan - show who will do it, and how it gets funded.
You don't need to meter everything - there may be ways to calculate energy by end use based on other information the BAS gathers - for example pump run time can tell you pretty well how much energy a pump might be using. On a recent project, one of our clients contracted with a firm that specializes in this kind of analysis. They monitor approximately five hundred data points continuously. "Computer analysis of this data determines operating patterns that fall outside of a determined tolerance and recommends the affected system components for study by an engineer." Information is reported to the owner on a monthly basis. This information, combined with basic building level energy data, collected through utility meters, is used as part of the M&V effort. This approach was approved by the reviewers.
Many people are confused because older versions of LEED had a specific list of metering requirements. While that list is a good starting point, current versions of LEED allow much more flexibility, but put the onus on the team to develop a plan that is complete, appropriate and that will actually be implemented.
You mentioned that "older versions or LEED had a specific list of metering requirements." I would like to see that list just to help me get started. Do you have a copy available? I am also looking for examples of good M&V plans to emulate. My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. I would sure appreciate any resources you are willing to offer.
Hannah, I think the list Chris is referring to is in the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide. Do you have a copy?
Have you checked out the Option D template we have above in the Doc Toolkit?
This is a LEED-CI question but the above thread is the best from Christopher Schaffner is the best explanation of what's needed to be done for the M&V plan.
However I think that the LEED-CI 2009 has used the old version LEEDNC2.2 to explain the credit and now lists out all the requirments for submeteringSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy use within a building attributable to specific end uses or subsystems (e.g., the heating subsystem of an HVAC system)., which is confusing for fitout projects that occupy more than 75% of the building area but will not be big enough to install a BAS moniotirng system to monitor itmes like airflow pressure, fan status etc. As this forum seems more up to date on M&V do you think its possible to not measure all the items listed and focus on what really is important?
I'm working on a very large building, and I was wondering regarding the "1 year M&V period post occupancy” requirement, would this begin once the whole building is occupied and operational or as each phase/ area becomes operational i.e. multiple M&V periods.
I assume that it is whole building, but as there is likely to be a significant gap between the first and last phases becoming operational, I’d thought I’d check.
Big thanks & apologies if this is a silly question (this is my first assessment!).
Gathering data by phase would be difficult. Your energy model (assuming you are using Option D) would not be created by phase so calibration would not be possible.
So after the entire building is completed, then select a one year time period to do the M&V on the whole building.
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 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.