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) "LEED Interpretation" "1549" "2006-08-09" "New Construction, Core and Shell" "Our question pertains to is a mixed use residential - commercial highrise; 15 stories, 159,646 GSF total; 147,364 GSF housing, 46,994 GSF parking below grade; 4,204 GSF retail at the ground floor. Our M&V plan was developed in accordance with the IPMVP Option D. Energy savings calculations are to be validated by calibrating the original energy simulation model developed for projecting savings during design of the project. This calibration will be accomplished by using information from the following sources:  Permanently installed metering: monthly gas and electric utility billing data and key submetered gas and electric end-uses. This will enable accounting of domestic hot water energy, heating energy, cooling energy consumption, and on-site energy production.  Baseline measurements on public area electrical lighting loads that will be effected by lighting control strategies to verify baseline energy loads.  Periodic temporary metering: periodic metering using data loggers to confirm actual electrical energy consumption by lighting in public areas effected by lighting control strategies.  Sampling of residential lighting using a strategy based on the California HERS sampling strategy. In the preparation of the M&V plan we have concentrated our effort on the specification of sufficient data to provide adequate tools for the future verification energy modeler. The engineering calculations, operational estimates, utility meter-billing analysis, statistical sampling methods, metering and monitoring techniques outlined in this plan are commonly used sources of information used to perform the analysis prescribed by the Option D protocol, demonstrating compliance with the credit requirements. Please confirm that the plan as described plan satisfies the intent of EAc5. Thank you." "Your M&V approach is acceptable for EAc5. The protocol described aligns with the intent and requirements of the credit. Make sure to submit a complete M&V plan in the LEED certification submittal. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1556" "2006-09-04" "New Construction" "This credit interpretation request is in reference to Energy and Atmosphere Credit 5 for Measurement and Verification (M&V) at the 725,000 ft2 North Bay Regional Health Centre. Our approach is Option D as described in the Reference Guide and IPMVP document. This credit requires that 10 end-uses be measured, in a manner that provides for the ""ongoing accountability and optimization of building performance over time."" Our overall measurement and verification approach is very comprehensive and includes individual metering for 9 of the end uses as well as an extensive metering system including 40 individually metered loads throughout the building, consisting of both lighting and miscellaneous loads. We would like clarification that our lighting measurement approach is also acceptable. In this facility we have separate meters for the incoming power supply to the building as a whole, for each substation, for each pod and for each floor (or in the case of the diagnostic building, for each quarter of the building block), on both emergency and normal power. Although the lighting panels in this facility are not separate from the other power panels, this level of metering allows us to effectively isolate and troubleshoot problems as required. This is also useful in identifying and explaining changes in energy consumption in the highly transient hospital environment. Our M&V plan will identify the methodology by which this will be achieved. By compiling energy consumption data on a monthly basis for each pod and comparing it to consumption in previous months of the same season (or to the same month in a previous year), we are able to determine if power use has varied significantly and, if so, an investigation into the causes for this variance shall be undertaken. Having forty separate metering locations throughout the facility makes this a task that is manageable by considerably narrowing down the region of investigation. We believe this meets the credit intent. Because a large portion of switchable hospital lighting and equipment is on emergency power, we propose to use the same approach for the emergency panels. Our question is as follows: With respect to monitoring lighting use, is it acceptable to monitor both lighting plus the miscellaneous loads at each floor of each pod (or, in the case of the diagnostic building, in each quarter of the building). This will identify changes in usage in a limited area allowing for a concentrated investigation into the cause and prompt correction of the problem." "The suggested strategy of measuring lighting and receptacle loads for normal and emergency power from a combined panel does not meet the intent or the requirements of the credit. The LEED-NC v2.1 Reference Guide is very clear that lighting systems and associated controls are required to be metered separately. The strategy outlined above does not allow for any way to account for the variability of receptacle loads that may skew the numbers for a highly transient hospital environment such as this. The same applies to emergency power measurement issues." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2097" "2008-05-27" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Core and Shell" "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" "5586" "2004-10-04" "New Construction" "I have several questions relative to this credit as it relates to new building construction. Question #1: Does the requirement to install continuous metering equipment for the 10 end-uses also necessitate that the 10 end-uses be continuously metered/monitored at the BMS? Question #2: To what level of rigor and/or accuracy must end-uses be metered or be capable of being metered? For example, the project employs the following energy conservation measures relative to lighting and lighting controls: high efficiency lights, dimming controls, occupancy sensors and daylighting controls. If Option B were to be pursued, would individual lighting circuits and dimming panels be required to be metered in order to determine lighting usage patterns and power consumption relative to each lighting ECM since no stipulations are allowed? Is this level of sub-metering also required for Baseline calibration if Option D were to be pursued? Question #3: Under Option B, must all strategies that have the potential to conserve energy relative to a Code-developed Baseline be analyzed in order to comply with this credit, or can the client chose to focus only on specific ECMs of their choosing? Question #4: Since Option B does not permit any stipulations, does a building that uses operable windows and a range of control interfaces with HVAC equipment ranging from none to end-switches preclude Option B and necessitate Option D whereby some level of stipulation relative to window opening and its affect on terminal unit conditioning can be applied? " "1. The intent of the M&V effort is for the project to actually undertake the monitoring described in the M&V Plan. As stated in the Reference Guide, this should include identification of those parties who will provide the monitoring, the tools in place to allow it and the analytical methods that will be used to perform the work. Review previous ruling (6/2/2002). 2. Per Table 1 (section 3.4 page 22) Volume 1 March 2002 revision of the 2001 IPMVP temporary metering is consistent with the Option B approach. In the case of constant loads (such as high efficiency lights), typical load values (kW, BTUH, etc) and operating schedules (hrs / wk, etc) should be established to confirm that the design intent is being achieved. Variable loads (such as dimming controls) can be profiled with short term measurements that determine a load value pegged against another variable point that can be measured or accurately estimated over time. These can then be used for input to either methodology. For Option D, review previous (9/20/02) Ruling 3. It is assumed that all strategies to save energy would be analyzed as part of the design development process and thus an M&V methodology for each could be described. For Option B, the strategies to be focused on should be those that involve the 10 required loads. We would therefore expect to see the M&V Plan focus on the ""intersection"" between project-specific ECM\'s and LEED required loads. As noted in 2 above, Option D would require that end use elements affecting whole building usage would be monitored and used to calibrate the model. 4. One of the largest challenges in new construction evaluation is to have an adequately described expected energy usage for the given measure. This can be achieved by subtracting energy savings from an expected baseline, but those values must be ECM and, often, system specific. This challenge applies to all methodologies, as even with Option D the intent is to be as load specific as possible with measurement. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5587" "2002-06-06" "New Construction" "I have several questions relative to this credit. This project is new construction and we plan to employ option D for this credit by taking the computer simulation generated for EA Credit 1 and applying it to this credit by calibrating the simulation with monthly utility bills for the first 12 months of operation. I have three questions for this scenario: Can we achieve this credit by having the above plan documented at substantial completion? When this project is submitted for LEED certification, must we have someone under contract to do the simulation calibration and comparison to baseline after 12 months of operation? How do we handle the \'ten required monitoring categories\' listed on page 155 of the Reference Guide when none on the M & V Methods Tables in the 1997 IPMVP include provisions for Option D, calibrated simulation? Are these ten categories simply included in the whole building simulation?" "As listed in the credit requirements, the project must submit a copy of the M&V plan with the LEED submittal, no matter which M&V plan is adopted. The submittal should also include information about the instrumentation installed in the building that enables the project to monitor all of the ten categories listed in the IPMVP protocol that apply to this project. If individual metering capacity for the 10 measurement categories is not built into the project, the project must demonstrate some other firm commitment to obtaining this data. This could be accomplished by providing a copy of the contract for this subsequent work, or by setting up the model as part of the M&V plan so that the evaluation is complete except for the actual billing data. In this case the plan would need to clarify the methodology for how the billing consumption data will be distributed among the ten required monitoring categories. For more information, refer to the referenced standard: DOE\'s IPMVP. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5668" "2002-09-20" "New Construction" "On a new building project we would like to earn credit EA 5 for M&V. We plan on using M&V option D with the computer simulation model that was created for EA Credit 1. Currently the building has one meter for electricity, one for natural gas, and one for water. The 12-month data from these meters would be used to calibrate the computer simulation model. The energy use from the billing data will be distributed among the ten monitored categories by the percentage of energy use that each category represents in the computer simulation model. The method for this distribution would be included in the M&V plan. The building owner, the city\'s Department of General Services, and the Department of Environment will provide a signed letter indicating their commitment to implementing the M&V plan on an annual basis. Does this meet the requirement for the monitoring of the ten categories and,ultimately, allow us to achieve this credit?" "To meet the requirements for this credit, your M&V plan would need to demonstrate the ability to identify specific problem areas if discrepancies exist between modeled and metered data. Protocol D implies that some level of end-use data may be necessary to identify discrepancies between modeled expectations and actual results. To achieve this credit you will need to demonstrate that your M&V plan will be able to identify specific building performance issues and is not just be an exercise in assigning billing energy use to ten categories based on design-phase energy model performance assumptions. To achieve this credit, demonstrate that the M&V plan you adopt will be able to verify actual energy use associated with the categories listed on the first page of the credit. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5815" "2001-10-04" "New Construction" "Some credits such as EA credit 5, Measurement and Verification, require work after the submittal for LEED certification near substantial completion. The same may be true for commissioning. Does certification have to wait until these credits is fully implemented?" "The documentation requirements noted on page 155 of the Reference Guide require items that are readily available prior to substantial completion. EA Credit 3: The documentation requirements on page 145 of the Reference Guide require items that are readily available prior to substantial completion. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5906" "2001-11-09" "New Construction" "The question that we have is concerning metering the facility with the whole building energy meters versus individual system metering. We believe that the LEED reference documentation for metering which is the ""International Performance Measurement & Verftification Protocol, Concepts and Options for Determining Energy Savings"", by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Dept. of Energy, October 2000, under chapter 3, defines that whole building metering is acceptable. If an Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) needs to be specifically measured, it could be measured on a ""temporay, isolated"" meter reading. We would like the USGB to review this interpretation and advise us at their earliest convenience." "The LEED Reference Guide June 2001 Formatted Version page 157 Table 1 provides a summary of Measurement and Verification options. Option C, which meets LEED requirements, allows savings to be determined by whole building metering data. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X"