When Portfolio Managers say “we’re trying to access institutional capital, we need to increase our GRESB rating,” there are multiple different paths to potentially pursue.
That said, most sustainability teams have already picked the low hanging fruit.
And so, at least for portfolios where tenants are directly metered, most quickly realize that the most direct path is by increasing data coverage.
That’s because, as of the most recent GRESB scoring methodology (the 2025 framework is set to be released shortly), data coverage is the largest contributor at 17.5 total points.
With so many available points, and relatively small differences between star ratings, this makes sense.
The next question is how to increase data coverage. We covered previously how green leases and LOAs, while effective tools, often fail to deliver.
This leads many professionals to wade into the world of shadow metering. While it can seem that it’s all the same, the devil is in the details.
Proprietary vs Open Protocols
Jeff Bezos is famous for his decision making framework of “Type 1” and “Type 2” decisions.
Type 1 Decisions: These are impossible to reverse. Once you make a Type 1 decision, there’s no going back and therefore should be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation.
Type 2 Decisions: These are changeable and reversible. Type 2 decisions might feel momentous, but they can be reversed with a little time and effort and therefore can be made more nimbly.
How does this relate to shadow metering?
Some sensors used for shadow metering are “proprietary” meaning that only a particular software can be used to leverage the data.
This is like making a Type 1 decision. Once you deploy these, you’re locked in and there’s no going back.
On the other hand, some sensors are “open protocol” meaning that another software provider could access the data (with some security processes, of course).
This is more like a Type 2 decision.
It might seem abstract, but it’s important to ask “What if they raise prices? What if service quality drops? What if they get acquired or go bankrupt?”
Open protocols give you the freedom to switch vendors if needed.
Multi-point vs Single-point
Shadow metering is guaranteed 100% data coverage. Often, the primary question is whether the property can bear the cost.
While there will be variance in the cost of the sensors used, by far the biggest variance comes from how many sensors are needed.
When it comes to capturing electrical data, the answer to this can often be boiled down to how many distinct loads can be captured with one device.
So, it’s important to ask and compare how many “points” can be captured with one device.
Invasive vs Non-Invasive
Perhaps the only other question besides cost that can sideline a shadow metering project is whether installation requires shutdowns.
Stated bluntly, shutdowns should be avoidable in 99% of scenarios across electric, water and gas.
Too many sustainability professionals have been turned off on the concept of shadow metering by vendors that have required lengthy power shutdowns, have had to cut pipe, or have new gas meters installed.
While the specific sensors vary, none of these situations should come up when evaluating a project.
Dependent vs Independent Networking
There is nothing inherently wrong with leveraging a building’s internal network or WiFi to transmit data from sensors to the cloud.
Except that it will require interfacing with IT departments, lengthy evaluations and audits, extended deployment timelines, and cybersecurity risk.
Most modern vendors today will use dedicated cellular networks independent of any building IT to provide an elegant alternative to that mess.
Most will, but it’s worth checking.
On this note, any networking is liable to go down periodically. What is the vendor’s plan for when that happens? Will there be gaps? How long of an outage can they sustain?
Core or Side Business
In addition to capabilities today, it’s important to understand what capabilities will be tomorrow.
Is metering technology a core competency, or has it developed as a byproduct of other business pursuits, such as measuring and verifying projects?
Have they developed any completely novel ways to capture data?
Is software a core competency, or is the functionality limited to the needs of today?
After there is 100% data coverage, how will the vendor answer the inevitable “what’s next?” question?
That is perhaps the most important question. Because even GRESB is moving to include operational efficiency in their scoring methodology.
For owners with direct metered tenants, this presents a serious challenge that must be planned out today, even if it’s not executed until tomorrow.
.png)
