NEWS Environmental Building News (March 2010) Features What's Happening Product News & Reviews BackPage Primers Opinion GreenSource Magazine EBN Archives

Measurement and Verification:
Monitoring Building Systems for Optimal Performance

An Executive Summary is available for this article.

Andy Shapiro noticed something funny when he examined the energy use of the new manufacturing facility for NRG Systems, Inc., in Hinesburg, Vermont: lights were turning on at night when nobody was using the space. The LEED^® Gold building’s sophisticated measurement and verification (M&V) system, which records when and where the building uses energy, allowed Shapiro, principal of Energy Balance, Inc., in Montpelier, Vermont, to see the unexpected blip of energy use and to solve the mystery. The culprit was neither a ghost nor a system malfunction, but Otis, the company cat, who was tripping the occupancy sensors during his midnight prowls. A simple adjustment to the system’s sensitivity reduced the building’s energy use and allowed Otis to continue his adventures in the dark.

While M&V is helpful for pointing out anomalies like this, it can play a much more significant role in reducing energy use. The LEED Platinum Alberici Corporate Headquarters in Overland, Missouri, was designed to use half the energy of a comparable, conventional building, but one year after it opened it was far from meeting those expectations. Thanks to the M&V system, the building, which opened in December 2004, will be meeting its performance goals by the end of 2006. “Without it, we wouldn’t have known how to tweak it,” says Thomas Taylor, general manager of Vertegy, a subsidiary of Alberici Corporation. “We would have been fumbling in the dark looking for the light switch.”

What Is M&V?

M&V (sometimes called monitoring and verification) is the capability to track the performance of a piece of equipment, a mechanical system, or an entire building. Ideally, this tracking allows for adjustments that reduce resource use and operating costs. As with the NRG and Alberici systems, M&V is most often used to track energy consumption, and this article similarly focuses on its use with energy systems. But M&V can also be applied to water use, indoor environmental quality, and a range of other metrics. M&V simply allows a user to compare the performance of a particular system or building to the performance of the same system or building at an earlier time, to the performance predicted by a simulation, or to the performance of other systems or buildings.

The M&V industry came about as a result of the 1973 oil embargo, when high energy prices spawned energy service companies (ESCOs) that offered to design, implement, and finance energy-efficiency improvements to existing buildings. ESCOs generally guarantee specific results and operate on performance-based contracts, so M&V emerged as a mechanism to determine whether the predicted savings had been achieved and, in turn, to reduce the building owner’s financial risk of investing in efficiency improvements. As a result of this origin, the M&V industry has historically focused on measuring the effects of replacing individual energy-system components in existing buildings. (For more on applying the ESCO performance-based compensation model to new construction, see EBN Vol. 4, No. 2.)

The green design community, however, is learning that in addition to its role in verifying savings, M&V can also be employed as a more direct means of reducing energy use. Monitoring energy systems can identify problems that might otherwise have gone unnoticed as well as opportunities for greater efficiency even when systems are operating as intended. It allows for relatively easy reductions in energy use, and it allows those reductions to be more consistent and persistent. “Feedback is part of nature,” says Bill Reed, AIA, of the Integrative Design Collaborative in Arlington, Massachusetts. “Systems respond to external stimuli. M&V is bringing us closer to the way nature works.”

M&V’s role in the design and operation process

While the M&V system won’t be installed in a new building until construction is underway, M&V should be considered early in the design process. Introducing M&V can alter the design of the mechanical system or the building automation system, says Malcolm Lewis, Ph.D., P.E., president of CTG Energetics, Inc., based in Irvine, California. Just as important, “it helps to focus the design team on thinking about how the building is going to be operated,” he told EBN. “All too often there’s a disconnect there.” Writing the M&V plan generally falls to the project’s energy modeler or commissioning agent (often the same entity), but the M&V planning process should also involve the future building operators, as they will be expected to execute the plan.

M&V begins during commissioning, the process of ensuring that the building’s systems are functioning properly (see EBN Vol. 9, No. 2). “What the M&V plan does in the short term is validate whether the commissioning was done correctly or not,” says Taylor. Reed echoes that thought: “We model, we commission what we model, and then we verify what we commission.” As the building ages, however, the role of M&V diverges from that of commissioning. Commissioning can tell if a boiler was installed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, but it can’t tell whether that boiler is running longer than necessary or how adjusting the temperature setbacks will affect the efficiency of the entire building. “M&V is the only way to review for continuous improvement,” says Taylor.

M&V also shares some territory with post-occupancy evaluation (POE; see EBN Vol. 12, No. 9). POE sometimes even includes M&V information but is generally broader than M&V, considering the qualitative aspects of a building’s performance—such as whether occupants are happy with the temperature or the quality of the light—as well as the quantitative aspects—such as the average temperature or amount of light. POE also differs from M&V in that it represents an isolated snapshot of a building’s performance, whereas M&V involves regular, long-term analysis.

The M&V plan

The owners’ goals should drive the M&V plan. Based on those goals, the project team can “formulate how you collect information, when you collect information, and what you use it for,” says Taylor. In practical terms, the M&V plan should specify which systems are to be monitored, and how. In addressing the building’s lighting system, for example, NRG Systems’ M&V plan specifies, “Lighting is fed from four dedicated breaker panels. Each panel has a watt transducer, and data is tabulated by the DDC (direct digital control for building automation) system.”

The plan should also explain how the M&V information should be used. NRG’s plan calls for rerunning the energy model for the building, as it was built, following the first year of occupancy, with inputs adjusted to match actual set points and occupancy. It also calls for using the adjusted inputs to model the baseline building, an inexpensive process that allows for a more accurate estimation of the building’s energy use compared to that of a conventional building. Most important, NRG’s plan calls for adjusting building operations to minimize energy use.

Finally, the plan should establish who is responsible for managing the process (in this case, Shapiro) and how long it should continue (16 months, though Shapiro is now continuing the process beyond that period because he is interested in the information).

The M&V system

As with the M&V plan, the characteristics of the M&V system itself should be determined by the owner’s goals. All but the most basic M&V systems submeter individual building systems, such as lighting, heating, and cooling. Especially in mixed-use buildings, submetering different areas of the building, such as office and laboratory space, can also provide useful information.

An M&V system generally includes both sensors—which measure the volume and rate of flow, 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 are “missing sensors for measuring things like watts or flow or temperature or status,” says Shapiro. “They’re also missing additional programming of the system to tally up energy usage and keep track of usage patterns.” Integrating these pieces within the existing system generally poses little difficulty, however, as long as the owner’s needs are clear.

Despite the key role of building automation systems in M&V, manufacturers of these systems aren’t actively marketing this capability. “I’m kind of surprised,” says Paul von Paumgartten, director of energy and environmental affairs at Johnson Controls, Inc., based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “Maybe each of us is waiting for the other,” he told EBN. Or they may be waiting for more demand from consumers. “I have never backed away from an M&V project,” says Terry Hoffman, Johnson Controls’ director of building automation systems marketing, “but the real surprise is that it is hardly ever part of a bid package.”

M&V standards

The industry standard for M&V, both in the U.S. and internationally, is the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). Several organizations have published M&V guidelines based on IPMVP. Among them are the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE); the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP); some utilities and states that fund energy-efficiency projects; and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Rating System (see below). Some organizations with M&V standards offer guidance in writing M&V plans, including sample language.

IPMVP. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, IPMVP is now owned by the nonprofit Efficiency Valuation Organization. IPMVP consists of three volumes. Volume I defines terminology and establishes procedures for determining the savings resulting from retrofits. Volume II focuses on maintaining or improving indoor environmental quality during and following the implementation of energy-conservation measures. Volume III provides guidance on specific M&V issues, including applying M&V to renewable-energy systems and to new construction.

IPMVP’s guide to new construction, first published in 1997, “was driven by a growing market demand for post-construction validation of the performance of new buildings,” says Gordon Shymko, principal of G. F. Shymko & Associates, Inc., in Calgary, Alberta, and co-chair of the IPMVP subcommittee on new construction. Because the vast majority of buildings pursuing LEED certification are new, this guide is of special interest to the green building community.

Volumes I and III each lay out four compliance paths—Options A through D—for different situations. Volume I assumes a preexisting building or system against which performance can be measured. Volume III mirrors Volume I, while introducing ways to establish baseline performance in the absence of a preexisting system or building. In both volumes, Options A and B focus on subsystems, while C and D address whole buildings.

The Energy Valuation Organization, in conjunction with the Association of Energy Engineers, developed an M&V professional certification program in 2002, both to recognize qualified practitioners and to raise the professional standards within the M&V field. About 200 people, mostly in North America, have earned certification. The Association of Energy Engineers holds training seminars for those preparing to take the certification exam and anyone else interested in learning the fundamentals of M&V and working with IPMVP. More information is online at www.aeecenter.org.

LEED. The LEED rating systems offer points for M&V, though only about 30% of LEED-certified buildings have earned them. LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC), version 2.1, referenced IPMVP Volume I for its M&V point. Because Volume I was designed to guide retrofits, however, using it for LEED-NC “was, and is, problematic . . . a classic square peg in a round hole,” says Shymko, who also serves on LEED’s Energy and Atmosphere Technical Advisory Group. “As a result, the methodologies applied were inconsistent and difficult to adjudicate,” he says.

One of USGBC’s hopes for the M&V credit was to see M&V information “turn into a stream of data to see how well LEED buildings are performing,” Malcolm Lewis told EBN. So USGBC reevaluated the credit requirements. LEED-NC 2.2 offers the M&V point for implementing a plan consistent with IPMVP Volume III, for new construction, for at least one year. Since this standard is a much better fit for new construction, the change made the credit “easier to understand and more consistent,” says Shymko. Small buildings with simple mechanical systems may choose to follow IPMVP Option B, which calls for measuring each of the building’s main energy systems in isolation, but Option D, which calls for whole-building monitoring, is more appropriate for most buildings.

LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) offers up to four points for M&V. Up to three are awarded, in quarter-point intervals, for metering a range of specific items. The fourth point calls on owners to quantify emissions reductions resulting from their buildings’ energy savings, report them through a third-party certification program, and retire at least 10% of them through that program. It also requires owners to “ask the suppliers of goods and services for the building to do the same by implementing actions of tracking, reporting, and retiring emissions reductions and asking their suppliers to do the same.”

LEED for Core and Shell (LEED-CS; currently undergoing member balloting) offers two points for M&V. The first is for providing infrastructure in the base building design to facilitate metering whole-building electricity use and tenant electrical end uses, as appropriate and consistent with IPMVP Volume III, Option D, and the second is for including a centrally monitored electronic metering network in the base building design that is capable of being expanded to accommodate future tenant submetering. The distinction between the two points, however, is unclear. “The final draft of CS has a number of problems with the M&V credit,” says Shymko, noting that “this credit will probably have to be cleaned up by administrative credit interpretation rulings.”

LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) has two compliance paths for its M&V points. Projects that occupy less than 75% of the total building area can earn one point for submetering energy uses within the tenant space and a second for negotiating a lease in which the tenant pays for energy directly instead of through rent to the building owner. Projects that occupy 75% or more of the building area, however, must follow the problematic compliance path laid out in LEED-NC 2.1. Shymko told EBN that USGBC was developing LEED-CI while it was also debating whether to adopt IPMVP Volume III for LEED-NC 2.2. “I can only surmise that [the CI team] did not want to take the lead on the matter.”

M&V requirements are likely to become more streamlined in future versions of each LEED rating system. “The reality is that IPMVP was never drafted with LEED as the primary target audience,” says Shymko. “The requirements were so onerous that nobody was taking them up on the credit,” says Lewis. “Sensors are expensive, and putting the number of sensors required to formally go along with the IPMVP protocol was out of proportion to the value of the information you were getting from it,” he told EBN.

The cost of M&V

The cost of M&V varies considerably depending on the complexity, accuracy, and specific features of the system. As a general guide, in Shymko’s experience, the installed equipment cost of M&V for system retrofits should be no more than 5% of the total retrofit project cost, and ongoing costs should be less than 10% of the savings associated with the retrofit. The cost for M&V with new construction (consistent with IPMVP Option D), including the cost of both the installed equipment and the first year or two of operations, should be less than 1% of the total project cost for buildings larger than 150,000 ft² (14,000 m²) and less than 1.5% for smaller buildings, according to Shymko. In projects with building automation systems, the cost for M&V should be significantly lower, because these systems inherently include some M&V capabilities.

Ironically, M&V systems carry some operational costs in the form of energy use. Shapiro was surprised to learn that NRG’s direct digital control (DDC) system itself was using 600 watts of electricity continuously. The main operational cost of M&V systems, however, is in staff time to read, interpret, and act on the information they provide. “You’ve got to program the system, you’ve got to read the results, and you’ve got to see how you did and decide what you’re going to do about it,” says Shapiro. “Someone’s got to do all the head-scratching.” Doing this well generally requires training. “Some building managers come up through the ranks from maintenance,” says Shapiro. “They’re not trained in DDC, or even in energy, so it’s a stretch for a lot of these folks.” As personnel changes, new employees must be trained if the institutional memory and the pattern of improvement are to be maintained.

Of course, M&V systems have great potential to pay for themselves over time. The payback period depends on the initial cost of the system, whether it finds inefficiencies that otherwise would have gone unnoticed, and the owner’s commitment to interpret and act on the information the system collects. Interpreting M&V data and sleuthing improvements takes as little or as much time, and money, as the owner finds useful. At NRG, Shapiro has identified some inefficiencies that would cost more to change than they would return in energy savings, but others are valuable—just a few small adjustments can pay for a system in short order.

What Are the Benefits of M&V?

The most obvious benefit of M&V is reducing utility consumption, which in turn reduces utility costs. Finding and fixing problems also extends the life of equipment, saving additional money over time. “A high-performance building is like any high-performance piece of equipment,” says Vertegy’s Thomas Taylor. “You can’t expect to turn it on and have it all run perfectly.” Bill Reed notes that in his experience it takes two years for high-performance buildings to hit their performance stride.

Peace of mind was the Alberici team’s primary motivation for implementing an M&V plan. When the team began looking into energy-efficient design, it found little proof that green buildings were running as efficiently as claimed. If you’re going to claim a certain level of performance, “you’ve got to have the documentation to back it up,” he told EBN. “You wouldn’t say you found a cure for cancer if you couldn’t prove it.” Now, when people ask how much energy the building uses, and what it’s used for, “we don’t have to say we don’t know, or lie,” he says. And people do ask—the building earned 60 points in LEED, the highest rating awarded to date, and was named among the 2006 American Institute of Architects’ Top Ten Green Projects (see EBN Vol. 15, No. 5).

This verification carries extra value for financing and marketing. If the design team’s compensation is based on—or in any way linked to—the building’s performance, M&V can continue its original roles of proving efficiency and managing risk. M&V also benefits client relations. “Implementing M&V lets my clients know I’m committed to following through and dedicated to getting our project to perform at, or above, the level we have claimed in our LEED documentation,” says Drew George, of Drew George & Partners, Inc., a green building consulting and commissioning firm based in San Diego, California. “Closing the loop with real data enhances our relationships. It’s all about long-term relationships.” Taylor adds that M&V brings transparency to the owner and other members of the project team: “It demonstrates that we do what we say we’re going to do.”

M&V also provides a means for quantifying and recognizing the emission reductions that result from green building. Generating the grid-supplied electricity used in buildings emits a range of pollutants. Reducing these emissions through energy efficiency or the use of nonpolluting energy sources such as solar or wind power, however, is rarely rewarded financially. This motivation for M&V is likely to become more relevant as more regions adopt cap-and-trade systems for greenhouse gas emissions, as the European Union has through its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol (see EBN Vol. 14, No. 2) and much of the northeastern U.S. has through its commitment to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (see EBN Vol. 15, No. 3).

The information gleaned through M&V can also improve the design, construction, and operation of other buildings. Institutions with multiple buildings, such as universities, have an extra incentive to implement M&V plans, as the lessons learned can be applied to new and existing buildings, whether or not they have M&V systems. Ideally, M&V information also comes back to—and educates— the project team. Better information about how buildings perform compared to models can improve both design and the models. “The design community has as much to gain from this as the owner community,” says Shapiro.

Why Doesn’t Every Building Incorporate M&V?

Since M&V comes at a cost, not every building or system warrants an elaborate M&V system. One of Vertegy’s clients is the sole tenant in a small, partially occupied building. For this client, M&V would be a waste of money, says Taylor. “They can look at their bills once a month and tell where they’re at.” Reed notes that, “In my house, I’m not going to spend money for a monitoring device for my gas burner.”

Buildings that are owned and occupied by different entities are challenging from an M&V perspective. Where tenants pay for utilities, the owner has no direct financial incentive to reduce energy use, and therefore no incentive to install an M&V system. Where tenants pay a flat rental fee and the owner pays for utilities, the owner has an incentive to reduce energy use but little control over how the building is operated. USGBC addresses these concerns through two of its rating systems: LEED for Core and Shell rewards projects that install M&V systems, and LEED for Commercial Interiors rewards projects in which tenants pay the energy bills.

Even when it would obviously benefit building owners, however, M&V remains rare. The nature of the building industry, which separates design and construction from operations, is one impediment to widespread adoption. “Ours is a project-driven industry, and, for many people, it’s all about moving on to the next project,” says Drew George. “We lose all our designers after the design process,” agrees Reed, who believes it would be preferable for the project team to remain periodically engaged in the building well after it hands over the keys.

Perhaps the most common barrier to M&V is lack of interest. Energy generally represents a small portion of the cost of doing business, limiting the relative value of efficiency. “Some people don’t want to dedicate the time and resources to operate the building as long as it’s running,” says Taylor. Sometimes even if the project team sets up the building to facilitate M&V, the owner fails to take advantage of the system because nobody on staff understands it or takes the time to interpret the results. “Most people don’t have a very clear goal of where they want to get to with energy efficiency,” says Shapiro. “People want to look forward,” he continues. “They don’t want to look back, and they don’t want to look at problems.” Evidence of poor performance can also be an embarrassment, or even a liability, to the owner or the design team—especially for buildings designed to be energy efficient.

Final Thoughts

Concerns about climate change, the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, the growing popularity of LEED, and rising energy costs should all boost interest in reducing energy use, and, in turn, spark new interest in M&V. Even though M&V represents an investment in both money and time, and often carries a risk, it also brings with it considerable benefits.

Taylor encourages project teams to install M&V systems and, once they’re installed, to use them. “You might pour your heart and soul into the design but find out you’re only at half the performance you thought you were at. Don’t be embarrassed; be proud that you have the data, and go out and fix it,” he says. “Take a bold step.”

—Jessica Boehland

For more information:

Efficiency Valuation Organization
Washington, D.C.
202-646-7953
www.ipmvp.org

Lucid Design Group, LLC
Oakland, California
510-907-0400
www.luciddesigngroup.com

U.S. Green Building Council
Washington, D.C.
202-828-7422
www.usgbc.org

---

There are no comments for this page yet.

Log in to add comments - Help with comments

---

	Energy Dashboards: Using Real-Time Feedback to Influence Behavior EBN: Feature - December 2008		More on the Challenges of M&V EBN: Letters - September 2006
	AIA Awards 2006 Top Ten Green Projects EBN: Awards & Competitions - May 2006		Federal Agencies Agree to Green Their Buildings EBN: What's Happening - March 2006
	Seven States Agree to Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative EBN: What's Happening - March 2006		Bush Signs Energy Policy Act of 2005 EBN: What's Happening - September 2005

---

Alberici Corporate Headquarters (110,000 sq. feet) (10,000 sq. meters) Commercial office Wind NRG Partners Manufacturing Facility (47,000 sq. feet) (4,300 sq. meters) Commercial office, Industrial

Alberici Corporate Headquarters This project entails the adaptive reuse of an existing manufacturing plant into a corporate headquarters for one of St. Louis' oldest and largest construction companies. Requirements included an open office environment, structured parking, training rooms, exercise facilities, and dining facilities. When company growth led to the decision to move, the company CEO "wanted to be in a place that fosters teamwork and creativity." After investigating 45 different sites, a brownfield site became available with a 1950s office building and a 155,633 ft2 former metal manufacturing facility. With 70' and 90' clear-span bays 505' long, it was a "cathedral of steel."

[ top of page ]

---

---

IMAGE CREDITS:
1. Photo: Johnson Controls, Inc.
2. Photo: Chris Tall, NRG Systems, Inc.
3. Photo: Honeywell Building Solutions
4. Source: Chris Tall, NRG Systems, Inc.

ARTICLE CONTENTS What Is M&V?   M&V’s role in the design and operation process   The M&V plan   The M&V system   M&V standards   Sidebar: Bringing M&V to Federal Projects   Sidebar: Bringing M&V to Occupants and Visitors   The cost of M&V What Are the Benefits of M&V? Why Doesn’t Every Building Incorporate M&V? Final Thoughts More Information DISCUSSIONS There are no comments for this page yet. Log in to add comments RELATED ARTICLES Energy Dashboards: Using Real-Time Feedback to Influence Behavior EBN: Feature - December 2008 More related articles RELATED CASE STUDIES Alberici Corporate Headquarters Overland, MO More related case studies RELATED LEED CREDITS Measurement and Verification EA Credit 5 More related LEED credits RELATED GREEN DESIGN HVAC Controls and Zoning More related green design