Domain: Energy
Question:
A state energy office is designing the multifamily data strategy for its IRA Section 50121 Home Efficiency Rebates program. The state needs whole-building or building-level energy data that can support savings verification and DOE reporting while protecting tenant privacy and avoiding burdensome collection of individual unit data wherever possible.

In the state's cities, multifamily housing is common. About 25% of multifamily buildings are already set up in EPA Portfolio Manager, but the remaining 75% are not, and their metering configurations vary across properties.

How should the state structure its multifamily data access plan so it can use existing Portfolio Manager coverage immediately, establish a workable approach for buildings that are not yet enrolled, and expand whole-building data availability over time without defaulting to tenant-by-tenant data collection?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that the state should implement a phased approach to obtaining multifamily data
States that the state should immediately use EPA Portfolio Manager for the buildings already connected
States that using Portfolio Manager provides access to whole-building aggregated data
States that for the buildings not connected, the approach depends on metering configuration
Explicitly identifies centrally-metered and individually-metered buildings as the two key metering categories requiring different approaches
States that Green Button works effectively for centrally-metered multifamily buildings
States that for individually-metered buildings with many units, the state should use the modeled program exception as the default pathway
States that the modeled exception is needed because BPI-2400 modeling requirements apply only to single-family homes (not multifamily)
States that the state should push for EPA Portfolio Manager adoption among buildings not currently connected
States that the state should prioritize EPA Portfolio Manager adoption where utilities already have whole-building aggregation protocols in place
States that the state should work with utilities to expand whole-building aggregation services
States that whole-building aggregation services can be provided via EPA Portfolio Manager
States that whole-building aggregation services can be provided directly by utilities at the building level
States that the state should provide technical assistance for property managers to establish accounts
States that the state should provide incentives for property managers to establish accounts
States that when neither EPA Portfolio Manager nor Green Button is feasible, the state should establish direct utility provision agreements
States that direct utility provision agreements should include whole-building aggregation
States that whole-building aggregation under direct agreements should be subject to minimum privacy thresholds
States that this phased approach avoids collecting individual tenant/unit data by default
States that the approach provides DOE-compliant data for savings verification and reporting
States that the state should use geographic aggregation for pre-participation targeting across multifamily properties
States that geographic aggregation enables marketing to building owners without requiring tenant-level data access before participation
States that the approach should allow for continued growth in scale and quality of data access over time
States that the technical assistance or incentives should help expand Portfolio Manager availability over the program timeline