M&V and metering

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.

Chris,
I find that this point is universally confusing for project teams -- even if they've taken the time to read through the IPMVP. 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 submeter 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,
Josh

Josh:

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 IPMVP 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.

Hi Christopher,
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 hpham@uskh.com. I would sure appreciate any resources you are willing to offer.
Thank you,
Hannah

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 submetering, 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?

Hello All!

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!).

Kit

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.