M&V retrofits typically average no more than 5% of the total project cost, studies show. 

The cost implications of this credit can vary and depend on the complexity of the meters and the submetering system, the cost of energy modeling and calibration, the cost of commissioning M&V components, and the size and complexity of the building. (See Resources for more information.)

Submetering different use areas in mixed-use buildings, such as office and laboratory spaces, can offer insight into what energy reduction measures are most appropriate for each space type. 

An M&V program generally includes sensors—which measure the 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, however, is relatively easy.

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 then subtract total plug load data from total building usage to get an estimated plug load. 

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 do not provide the detailed information that a BMS can, 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. Smaller, single-occupancy buildings may find that packaged energy monitors or monthly utility bills can provide helpful feedback without investment in a costly BMS. 

Option D is the best choice for projects with highly efficient building envelopes, and efficient mechanical and electrical systems, where energy savings measures will overlap. 

Option D: Calibrated Simulation

The cost implications for ECM isolation depend on how many meters are installed and the complexity of the systems being monitored. If systems are easily isolated and don’t require many meters, this credit can be relatively inexpensive to achieve, and Option B is more cost-effective than Option D. (See the appendix in ASHRAE Guideline 14-2004, for estimating the cost of meters.)

Isolating and metering different ECMs, such as HVAC systems or lighting, can provide useful information on energy consumption and provide insights about energy reduction measures.