Rolling out shadow metering across 100+ buildings is the kind of logistical nightmare that can paralyze sustainability and asset management teams.
A couple weeks ago, we ran a webinar outlining the pros and cons of each data capture strategy for tenant-controlled utility data.
As we talked about, shadow metering has its own pros and cons, and is often one of several strategies deployed at portfolio scale.
There are cases where shadow metering is the right option at scale, even across hundreds of buildings.
Inevitably, there are some key questions that arise from this strategic decision:
- How long will this take?
- How can so much complexity be handled at scale?
- What are the considerations for each utility type?
- How are meters maintained over time?
- How can nuances in tenant use cases and building locations be accounted for upfront?
Without clear answers, teams can get stuck and overwhelmed, causing delays and often pressure to make suboptimal decisions in the name of making any decision at all.
Here’s what we’ve learned during 100+ building deployments online in four months—what worked, what backfired, and what to absolutely avoid.
Traps to Avoid
Before diving into what shadow metering at scale should look like, it’s important to understand what traps to avoid in the first place.
It almost goes without, but bears repeating, the scope of the shadow metering deployment should flow directly from the value being delivered.
If the goal is to maximize data coverage for GRESB submission, then the granularity of metering should be at the tenant-level. It is unnecessarily expensive and complex to capture circuit-level data in this scenario.
So, the first trap to avoid is to get talked into overly complex deployments that will be difficult to scale. Instead, the solution provider should be able to understand the need and right size the scope to that.
The second trap to avoid is around speed.
Some providers will deploy shadow meters, but then require tenants to submit utility bills for three months so that the meter data can be calibrated and verified.
Obviously, this slows things down significantly because tenants not sharing their data is often the problem being solved in the first place.
Instead, the solution provider should deploy revenue grade metering, which is designed to ±0.5% to ±1.0% accuracy, validated against standards like ANSI C12.1 or C12.20. This ensures both accuracy and speed.
The third trap around chasing the absolute lowest cost option.
On paper, that means either deploying the submeters in house (a topic for another day), or going with a patchwork of local electricians and GCs to install shadow metering.
While appealing to save installation costs, the reality is that local providers are often buying metering off-the-shelf and passing on higher hardware costs. This is because many local providers default to single-point metering that requires more devices when there are multiple loads to monitor.
This also means that data is going to live in multiple different softwares. With the risks to Energy Star Portfolio Manager as the central source of truth, this is a bigger risk than ever.
Finally, the inconsistency in providers can lead to significant maintenance issues in the future because local firms are typically reactive because they don’t have the technology infrastructure.
What Shadow Metering at Scale Should Look Like
As mentioned above, everything starts with defining the objective and working backwards from there.
Using the example above, the goal might be to maximize GRESB points. With Energy and GHG data coverage accounting for 13.5 points, and Water data coverage accounting for 4, many teams opt to start with monitoring electricity and gas at the meter level, and then add water as a second phase.
Once the project definition and key success criteria are defined, and there’s an agreement in place, the first order of business is surveying the buildings.
This survey step is critical.
Because when it comes down to installing shadow metering, nothing beats getting on site to understand the nuances of meter locations, type, distribution infrastructure, and mapping.
Without surveying, providers must rely on property managers to gather this information. In industrial real estate, where each property manager oversees 20-40 buildings, this can take forever.
With the help of AI and software automation, this survey is then transformed into a specific scope of work for installers. The output is a field guide that is consistent whether the deployment is in Massachusetts or California. Consistent materials lead to consistent deployments, which is the only way to move both quickly and across many sites simultaneously.
Whether performed in house or third party, the physical installation is remotely monitored, with real-time feedback used for quality assurance and to verify data networking and accuracy.
Just as importantly on a go-forward basis, each meter is monitored for downtime and issues. Because otherwise, issues are not typically recognized until it’s time to report data. By then, it’s too late.
And of course, while all this technical complexity is critical to get the job right, there must also be executive updates that are clear, concise and actionable.
Lessons Learned
While shadow metering is less complex than building automation system integrations, for example, there is a fair amount of variability.
Much of this variability comes from two primary factors: the tenant use case and where the building is located.
For example, a fulfillment center run by a top ecommerce firm such as Amazon or FedEx is going to be teeming with robots. These robots run on electricity, and therefore, there are typically denser electrical infrastructures than a standard warehouse.
Obviously, the same applies for manufacturing and other high-intensity use cases such as product testing.
While that may be obvious, it is typically less obvious how different state and province electrical codes will affect shadow metering deployments.
For example, utility companies like Arizona Public Service (APS) mandates that meters be installed outdoors on an exterior wall with vehicle access or within a meter room on the first floor, accessible only from the outside.
These stipulations can necessitate more spread-out electrical distribution to accommodate the mandated meter locations, thus requiring more metering.
On one hand, deploying at scale means getting economies of scale. On the other hand, it means having the expertise to quote accurately, taking into account all of the nuances of a large and regionally-diverse portfolio.
Shadow metering doesn’t have to be a maze of delays and mismatched expectations. With the right approach, it becomes a go-to tool for accurate data coverage, automated reporting and tenant engagement insights.
