-
Monitor energy—or more
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...
Step-by-step credit help
Got the gist of the LEED credit but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Members get:
- Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
- Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
- Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
- Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
- All checklists organized by project phase.
- On-the-fly suggestions on useful items from the Documentation Toolkit, Resources, and Credit Language.
-
Credit language straight from USGBC
Need to check up on the exact LEED credit language from the LEED Rating System on the fly? LEEDuser includes the verbatim language. Members get:
- Easy access to the official LEED credit language with just a couple of clicks.
- On the jobsite without your bulky LEED Reference Guide? Check up on the credit language details here.
- Credit language content is used by permission of the U.S. Green Building Council.
Your credit-by-credit reference library
Why waste time chasing down referenced standards and supporting resources when LEEDuser links you directly to the ones you need? LEEDuser has gathered all the best tools out there and organized them by credit for easy reference. Members get links to:
- Organizations that can give information or help on a credit.
- Standards or studies that are key reference points for credits and prerequisites.
- Articles that help explain important topics.
- Key documents or references for credit inputs.
- Software tools you can use to run calculations or simulations.
Documentation Toolkit
In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
8 Comments
Energy and Water Data Release form - Option 3
If we pursue this option, are we only eligable for one point for this credit? That's what is coming up on my template, even though it says that i'm pursuing two credits.
Yep that option is worth one point.
Not sure why it says you are pursuing two credits?
Permanent Metering of Sub-Systems - Option 1 / D
We have a debate going in our office about whether Sub-Meters are required (or Not) for the Option D - Whole Systems Simulation method. In LEED NC V2.1, sub-meters were explicitly required, but over the years things have changed....2.2 and 2009 have softened their requirements for sub-metering and they refer to 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. Volume III for Guidance.
We've been doing sub-meters / sub-measurement on new projects because we think it is worth the cost; therefore we haven't even tried M&V without sub-subsytem feedback. We now have a commissioning agent that is seriously questioning our decision to sub-meter / sub-measure the project systems, but we think the project complexity warrants some feedback at the systems level and depending on the interpretation - that the credit would require it.
What is the general opinion? Are Sub-Meters totally up to the discretion of the team, on any project (excluding C&S applications)?
Is a high quality, calibrated energy model compared against the whole building meters one year after the completion of commssioning (along with a M&V plan and recommendations for improvements) all that is needed to earn Option 1 / D - no matter what?
And last but not least - Is the issue here really a language barrier around the definition of "Metering" and "Measuring" sub-system performance? I.E. Is 'Measuring' sub-systems potentially required?
Looking forward to the Opinions on this one...
Doug
Hi Doug,
Submeters are not required (actually they never were required despite the language in v2.1 since 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. never required them, that was a mistake and the EA TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. regretted it for quite some time).
It is possible to develop a M&V Plan which gathers the necessary data through spot measurements and short-term trending. The real issue is related to the cost of optaining the data. For small facilities without a central control system it makes sense to not install sub-meters, especially on the electric end. For large ones a sub-metering system will likely be far more cost-effective than gathering the data via more manual methods. Projects should do either (or both) in alignment with common sense. Get the data the cheapest way possible.
Yes all you need for EAc5 is what you describe. The Plan is the key. Regarding this specific issue - will the Plan gather the data needed to calibrate the model? There are multiple ways to do so and all are legitimate.
Yes measuring, not metering, by energy end use is required to sucessfully calibrate a model. Not necessarily every end use but the ones not measured need to be derived from measurements. For example, if the lighiting and HVAC are measured one could derive the plug loads (assuming that covers all the electric loads).
Marcus - thanks for the excellent response.
We should put in big bold letters -"Measuring, not Metering".
Marcus and Christopher - Thanks for the response! This is very helpful.
We reached a similar conclusion - that permanent sub-metering is not required per 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.. However, in my experience, some 'Real-Time' feedback is needed for non-constant loads like daylight dimming, VFDA variable frequency drive (VFD) is a device for for controlling the speed of a motor by controlling the frequency of the electrical power supplied to it. VFDs may be used to improve the efficiency of mechanical systems as well as comfort, because they use only as much power as needed, and can be adjusted continuously.'s, and other loads to accurately calibrate the model (as your comments point to Marcus).
From your experience, would it be appropriate to say the trending data through an energy managment system would (likely) meet the sub-system feedback needs for most M&V applications / model calibration?
One last question(s) - Is their an industry recognized definition that provides clarity around the term 'Metering' (I.E. is there a level of accuracy or an accepted method for the design of instruments that make them qualify as 'Meters'?). AND would digital measurement from a Energy Management System, that may not be as accurate as other kinds of 'Metering' qualify as 'Metering' for the LEED Credit (I'm sure the answer could easily be 'it depends').
Thanks in Advance for you reponse!
Best Regards,
Doug
I agree that some of the highly variable loads need more thorough measurement or metering.
Projects most certainly can trend data in an EMS. It is probably by far the most common way to do so in larger facilities which have one. This type of measuring definately does qualify under IPMVPThe International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides best-practice protocol for measurement and verification of new construction. This standard is referenced in LEED's measurement and verification credits. and LEED.
Not sure if there is a recognized level of accuracy for meters in general. What is acceptable does depend on the level of accuracy required by the project since typically higher accuracy cost more money. The IPMVP does not specify meter accuracy ranges, as far as I know, to allow projects teams to determine what works for the individual project. ASHRAE 14 addresses calibration procedures since the accuracy range is only valid in a calibrated meter.
This can be a key component of overall measurement uncertainty which is something that should be addressed by the M&V Plan. Acceptable uncertainty is influenced by budget and complexity. The goal is to reduce the level of uncertainty as much as possible. The overall acceptable level of uncertainty will influence the acceptable range of individual metering accuracy. The overall effect of the system being metered will also influence the desired level of accuracy for that meter(s).
So if your overall acceptable level of uncertainty is +/-5% then your individual meters can't be +/-5% since they would then take up all of the allowable uncertainty.
With all that said we would typically like to see electrical meters in the +/-0.25% to +/- 1.0% range and gas meters in the +/-2% range.
Thanks Marcus! This is great information.
Doug
Please register to use the forum.