NC-2009 EAc5: Measurement and Verification 1-3 points

To meet the requires of LEED-NC Version 2.2, EA Credit 5, are there any end uses that require continuously metering when IPMVP Option D is used? Specifically the end uses required under LEED-NC Version 2.1 were: 1. Lighting systems and controls 2. Constant and variable load motors 3. Variable frequency drive (VFD) operation 4. Chiller efficiency at variable loads (kW/ton) 5. Cooling load 6. Air and water economizer and heat recovery cycles 7. Air distribution static pressure and ventilation air volumes 8. Boiler efficiencies 9. Building-related process energy systems and equipment 10.Indoor water risers and outdoor irrigation systems Or, can these end uses be captured as an aggregate at the utility meter?

Our team wishes to submit an alternate approach to EAc5 consistent with the intent to "provide for the ongoing accountability and optimization of building energy and water consumption performance over time." We\'d like to use the PACRAT (Performance Assessment and Continuous Recommissioning Analysis Tool) automated Fault Detection and Diagnostic (FDD) program to provide ongoing M&V analysis. PACRAT utilizes recorded system operational data to improve facility operations and planning by: 1) Diagnosing system problems and poor performance and identifying energy wastes; 2) Documenting important system operational parameters such as loads, energy use, indoor air quality, etc.; 3) Setting a new standard for Monitoring and Verification of energy uses; and 4) Summarizing and formatting the data for effective visualization. PACRAT integrates enterprise data from many different controls, monitoring and metering systems. The system fully puts to use the volumes of data that can be obtained from building control systems, meters and data loggers, which generally gets ignored and lost. Benefits include: Actionable Results: PACRAT provides detailed, quantifiable, and actionable results of suboptimal and problem building and system performance. Output exceeds EAc5 goals by identifying the systems that are not functioning as expected and telling specifically how to correct it. With Option D modeling approach, the expense of developing, calibrating, and repeatedly running these models provides little lasting operational value to the performance of the building. Discrepancies in actual vs. modeled performance typically require extensive field investigation and trend data analysis to determine the cause(s) of the off-baseline performance. Persistence: Once configured, PACRAT provides regular (quarterly) output of system anomalies and performance results. Reviews of projects awarded EAc5 using the Option D approach indicates that the \'calibration\' exercise is often not performed. When it is performed, the nature of the procedure is to vary the input parameters of the building model until they come close to matching actual performance, often with only a cursory analysis of building systems to identify any inefficiencies. Makes Use of All Systems Data: PACRAT exceeds the \'Option D\' approach by using virtually all input/output data for each system under analysis (including individual sensors, valve and damper outputs, setpoints, etc.). In this way, it can perhaps be viewed as a pervasive \'Option B\' approach, where most of the parameters of each system are analyzed down to the individual control loop level. Analysis extends down to the individual systems level and includes air handling units, chillers, and hydronic pumping systems. Automated: Truly automated FDD methods remove the need for human beings to be contracted and engaged to provide analysis. The computational engine replaces the need for people to interpret results and is more efficient and can provide for more cost-efficient analysis. Web-Based: PACRAT is a web-based, electronic process from start to finish. Data is trended by the building automation system and is transmitted to the computational engine for analysis. Results are provided in a database format for the user to access via the Internet. The database format provides results that are filterable and searchable. Action taken by the Owner can also be entered onto the database for future reference. This project will include the electrical submetering points required by Credit 5, and will also include thermal (Btu) metering of chilled and hot water loads. Additionally, PACRAT will use approximately 400 system input/output points, including temperatures, humidity, pressures, status, damper commands, valve commands, and most setpoints perform the fault detection and diagnostics results and performance graphs. We propose an alternative compliance path requiring continuous metering equipment for those end-uses currently required by EAc5, as well as an automated FDD tool with quarterly reporting. This strategy will provide much more valuable feedback to the building operator and allow for ongoing accountability and optimization of building energy and water consumption performance over time. We are confident this will result in a more efficiently operated building with the highest level of accountability for systems performance.

I have a project consisting of one hotel and 24 chalet, we are attempting EAc5 monitoring and verification under LEED NC V 2.2 The project will be operated by one operator which will be responsible of all operational issues, such as housekeeping, food and beverage, maintenance ,.etc. The project is being supplied by its need from electricity, from one substation installed specifically for this project, also the gas and water will be supplied from one main gas and water tanks installed specifically for this project. Hence, the operator will pay against the energy and water consumption for the whole project, while the guests of the chalets will not be charged for their energy and water consumption since it will be covered in the main charge which they are paying. The buildings (chalets) are simple buildings, and the project team determined to follow option B as specified in the International Performance Monitoring and Verification Protocol IPMVP to develop the M&V plan and meeting the intent of this credit. The question is: To meet the intent of this credit, can the project team consider installing one main energy meter for each type of energy (electricity, Gas and water)? knowing that the M&V plan will be created and implemented as required.

We seek approval of alternative compliance for EAc5 under LEED v2009 by meeting the Advanced Energy Metering and Enhanced Commissioning credit requirements of LEED v4. The project is on a University campus that uses energy and water sub-metering and continuous benchmarking campus-wide, rather than applying the IPMVP. The University’s approach aligns with the LEED v4 intents and requirements and is more effective in supporting energy management and identifying opportunities for energy savings than IPMVP. Buildings on campus typically outperform energy model projections, so calibrating models would not be beneficial. At the University, building-level energy use data is tracked per end-use. Data is then compared against other efficient buildings on campus and CBECS, as a baseline. The University has real-time data from 200+ campus buildings to compare to. For example, University engineers know how much electrical, lighting and water use to expect based on how similar buildings on campus perform. The University holds internal competitions among buildings, where building operators try to beat out others and be a standout performer on campus through the Buff Energy Star award. This approach meets LEED v4 requirements of Advanced Energy Metering as follows: Permanently installed meters collect data for electrical energy, chilled water, steam, and water use and report every 15 minutes to the BAS. Meters measure consumption and demand for the building and extended trends are put on all HVAC and electrical systems as part of the campus wide continuous Cx effort. All data is remotely accessible through the BAS, a campus website, and Energycap, an energy reporting/accounting program. Continuous Cx is performed campus-wide by University CxAs and meets requirements of LEED v4 Enhanced Cx as follows: CxAs are onboard from the program plan phase through construction and continuous recomissioning. The University follows the current ASHRAE 0-2005 and 1.1.-2007 for HVAC&R guidelines. In Design Development, CxAs conduct a thorough review of design documents to gain an intimate knowledge of the systems and provide feedback, then review all applicable submittals, RFIs, ASIs during construction and make requests for further clarification, change orders, etc. as needed. CxAs develop systems manuals and composite documents which include additional information gathered by the commissioning process. Occupant and operator training are provided and seasonal testing occurs as part of the recomissioning program. LEEDv4 requirements of Enhanced Cx, Path 2:Enhanced and Monitoring Based Cx are achieved through the use of two tracking tools in the construction phase – a specification matrix (identifies field tests and required documentation to confirm issues are completed and all documentation submitted) and an equipment matrix (spreadsheet that identifies all equipment in the Cx scope). This tool identifies drawing reference, tag #, make and model, and dates when installation and functional test was approved, training was conducted, etc., and has proved successful for managing Cx process for large, complex, phased projects with numerous pieces of equipment and devices. CxAs direct field tests to validate control systems and equipment operate per sequence of operations as defined by engineer of record for the project and CxAs. Representative samples of sensor and device-level calibration checks are conducted. All points listed to be monitored and/or adjusted are checked. CxAs compile a list of control points to be trended and verify that these trends are programmed in BAS. Points are analyzed during the Post Acceptance Phase and throughout the life of the building to ensure proper control. Examples of points monitored are chilled water, heating water, and space temperatures, flow, outside air damper position. Limits of acceptable values for tracked points vary seasonally, but in general, if points are out of setpoint by +/- 10% action is taken to correct the error. Records of all test failures are kept and published along with recommended corrections and party responsible for responding. These are corrected by the contractor or inhouse technicians if outside of the warranty period. To maintain performance, all buildings enter the re-Cx program. A re-Cx manual provides the procedure for continuous Cx. Functional tests are pass/fail based on the ability to reproduce values or response from the originally Cx system. Upon occupancy, trending and reviews occur bi-weekly and quarterly reviews occur seasonally. CxAs document any modified control or operating procedures by the Owner during the 1st year warranty period to identify any links to MEP deficiencies. Envelope Cx is included in the OPR and BOD and performed by CxA. We request that 3 points be awarded for EAc5 under LEED v2009 for meeting the requirement of EA credits Advanced Energy Metering and Enhanced Commissioning in LEED v4.