Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "Reference Guide Correction" "100000759" "2011-02-02" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "None" "None" "Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 edition" "323" "9. Exemplary Performance" "NC, CS, and Schools projects pursuing Option 3 in addition to Options 1 or 2 are eligible for exemplary performance." "Reference Guide Correction" "100000366" "2010-07-19" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "None" "None" "Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 edition" "319" "3. Summary of Referenced Standards" "In the first paragraph, replace ""International Performance\nMeasurement and Verification Protocol, Volume III, EVO\n30000.1-2006, Concepts and Options for Determining Energy\nSavings in New Construction, effective January, 2006"" with\n""International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol\n(IPMVP) Volume III: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy\nSavings in New Construction, April, 2003""" "Rating System Correction, Reference Guide Correction" "100000772" "2011-02-02" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "None" "None" "Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 edition" "NC rating system 43; Schools rating system 46; Reference Guide315*" "NC & Schools" "Add the following option after OPTION 2:\n\nOR OPTION 3 (1 point)\n\nMeet MPR 6 through compliance Opttion1: 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." "LEED Interpretation" "10041" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "Is it acceptable for LEED NC 2.2 EAc5 M&V Plans to follow the concepts of the IPMVP but limit the savings analysis in an effort to control costs, if they provide ongoing accountability and meet or exceed owners\' M&V objectives?" "Meeting the owner\'s requirements and providing ongoing accountability of energy consumption alone do not satisfy the credit requirements. The M&V plan provided must be consistent with either Option B or Option D of IPMVP regardless of cost of implementation. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2097" "2008-05-27" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "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." "Based on the description of the proposed alternative compliance path for EAc5, it does not appear that the PACRAT and FFD systems by themselves would meet the requirements of the credit. While the described software and technology appear to provide sophisticated capabilities to capture, trend and analyze energy related data, the data must be reconciled to the energy and water performance projections generated under EAp2/c1 and WEcx as per the the requirements of EAc5 and pertinent sections of IPMVP Vol 1, 2001." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2117" "2008-05-27" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "Our project is a multiple buildings project on a historic site in California. This proposal requests approval of the following Measurement and Verification (M&V) approach for this project to satisfy LEED-NCv2.2 AGMBC EA credit 5. The project scope covers 34 buildings in total with a mix of new construction and renovation. Features of the building systems include, but are not limited to, the following: New Lodging (13 buildings):  in-floor radiant heating  toilet exhaust fans  boiler, pumps, expansion tanks  HVAC controls  gas fireplace inserts  domestic water systems  lighting controls  split-system air-cooled DX heat pumps (in 2 of the buildings only) New Healing Arts Center (HAC) building:  in-floor radiant heating & cooling  toilet exhaust fans  boiler, pumps, expansion tanks  chiller  heat recovery ventilator  fan coils  relief air system  radiant ceiling panels  hydronic panel radiators  HVAC controls  domestic water systems  lighting controls  fire/smoke dampers  Historic Buildings 547, 549, 546:  gas-fired duct furnace  exhaust fans  domestic water systems  lighting controls  HVAC controls Historic residential buildings (15 buildings):  boiler, pumps, expansion tanks  radiators, hydronic & gas-radiant  exhaust fans  radiant ceiling panels  domestic water systems  lighting controls  HVAC controls Historic common buildings (5 buildings):  boiler, pumps, expansion tanks  boiler power ventilators  radiators  exhaust fans  make-up air units  split-system air-cooled DX heat pumps  relief air system  fire/smoke dampers  unit heaters  HVAC control The project team, in working with the owner, has identified that the best approach to perform M&V on this project will be to use Option B. However instead of developing an M&V plan per building as prescribed by the IPMVP Volume 3, the project team intends to develop a single M&V plan based on system type. This reduces the number of M&V plans generated to drop from 34 (at one per building) to 6 (one per system type and one variation) as identified below - 1. In-floor radiant heating systems 2. In-floor radiant heating systems with DX cooling 3. In floor radiant heating and cooling systems with heat recovery ventilators 4. Gas-fired duct furnaces 5. Radiators and gas radiant heating system 6. Hydronic radiators combined with air-cooled DX heat pumps The following items will be included as standard elements to all M&V plans - 1. All auxiliary energy consuming equipment attached to any system as applicable 2. HVAC control points and controls applicable to each system In addition to the above mentioned inclusions, the team will also generate a separate system level plan to address - 1. All lighting system and lighting controls 2. Water consumption - split by domestic and heating water 3. Gas consumption for fire place inserts. As a general guideline all M&V plans will cover all aspects of the sections 3.2 and 4.3 of the IPMVP Volume III (2003). Given the unique nature of this project (historical, 34 buildings) the owner requests the USGBC\'s permission to use this alternative compliance path. The proposed approach is the most effective (cost and performance) means to capture data that supports systems evaluation and building operation decisions." "The approach described to achieve EAc5 across the 34-building complex is acceptable in the context of Option B. Although it is implicit in your description, be sure to explain in detail in your M&V Plan how your metering approach will enable investigation at the building level. In other words, while your plans may be organized at the system level, you will need to be able to isolate lighting loads at each building, for example.\n\nUpdate April 15, 2011: Please note that all 2009 projects in multiple building situations must follow the 2010 Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects, located here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7987. 2009 project teams should check this document for up to date guidance on all multiple building issues. " "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2474" "2009-02-20" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "To meet the requirements of LEED-NC Version 2.2, EA Credit 5, we would like to use IPMVP Option C. This option is considered a low rigor option by the IPMVP because the baseline comparison in this case is with a group of buildings that are located on various sites and are supposedly similar in usage and type. In our case two identical buildings on the same campus are next to each other and have the same square footage, number of stories, size, orientation, type of use (office), the same owner and the same maintenance staff. The first building is under renovation to achieve Gold certification and the second building will be renovated in three years. It appears to us, that metering the two identical buildings simultaneously and using the actual old non-renovated building metrics as a baseline for the retrofit of the second renovated building, follows the intent, philosophy and purpose of the LEED EA Credit 5. In addition, this will give an incentive to the owner to continue with the renovation of the second building when energy savings are evaluated during the first year of operation. Is the use of the IPMVP Option C acceptable in this particular case?" "The applicant is requesting approval to develop a Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan based on IPMVP Option C. While it appears that the baseline building will more accurately represent the proposed building than most projects conducting M&V using IPMVP Option C, the proposed approach is not acceptable. Only whole-building level performance can be measured using IPMVP Option C. IPMVP Options B and D, in addition to being more accurate, allow for the measurement and verification of performance of each energy conservation measurement (ECM). Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2576" "2009-04-27" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EAc5 - Measurement and verification" "The statements of the IPMVP Volume III regarding Option D leave considerable room for interpretation. For example, Section 4.5.5 states, ""parameters that change daily or hourly may warrant continuous metering."" Individual task lights are an example of a modeled energy use that would likely change on an hourly basis. However, on average the task lighting may remain relatively stable when viewed at a whole building level. The term ""may"" is subject to interpretation by reviewers since some may interpret it to be a requirement, i.e., ""shall"", while others merely a suggestion. Additionally, the IPVMP does not stipulate at what level the continuous metering shall be installed. Our project is an office building that receives electricity, chilled water, and steam from a campus central energy plant. In anticipation of utilizing Option D of the IPVMP, our project plans to meter energy and water end use as follows: - Domestic water meter measuring flow in gallons per minute - Steam flow meter for building heating and domestic hot water measuring in pounds per hour - Chiller water flow meter measuring building cooling demand in gallons per minute and temperature change, i.e., BTU meter - Individual air handling unit VFDs measuring motor speed, motor current, output voltage and output frequency - Power meters at the main switchgear measuring volts, amperes, watts, volt-amperes, VARS, kilowatt-hours VAR-hours, demand kilowatts, power factor, frequency and harmonic distortion - Power meters at the distribution panelboards on each floor measuring volt, amperes, watts, volt-amperes, VARS, demand kilowatts and power factor Our project does not plan to individually meter any of the following energy end uses: - Lighting panels (lighting control system will monitor operating hours) - Task lighting - Process energy (office equipment, elevators, etc.) - Constant speed pump motors (DDC system will monitor runtime) Does this metering plan appear to meet the intent and requirements of the IPVMP Volume III and EA Credit 5? If not, what modifications are required to comply with the intent of the credit?" "The applicant is requesting guidance for determining the extent of individually metering needed to provide the necessary feedback for calibrating their as-built energy model (IPMVP Vol. III, Option D). Based on the description provided, it is not possible to make a determination if the metering plan fully satisfies the intent and requirements of IPVMP Volume III. While it appears that many of the end-uses and systems are sub-metered and the information will be necessary for calibrating the energy model, it should be noted that it is not necessary to sub-meter everything. Assess the level of metering to do the calibration. Since the task lighting is highly variable and a direct product of occupancy, as opposed to scheduled operations, it would be acceptable that the task lighting anticipated energy use be stipulated, as offered in IPMVP Vol. III Section 4.5.3. For EAc5 compliance, the M&V plan should address the methods and approaches that seem most appropriate for measuring and verifying energy use under IPMVP Option D. Applicable internationally. " "None" "None" "X"