What is monitoring-based commissioning?

The four things called commissioning, and how they differ

The terms are used interchangeably in the market and are not interchangeable in a scope of work.

Term	When	What it produces
Cx — commissioning	During design and construction of a new building	Verification that systems were installed and operate as designed
RCx — retro-commissioning	Once, on an existing building never formally commissioned	A one-time study, a findings list, and corrections
Re-Cx — recommissioning	Periodically, on a building previously commissioned	A repeat of the original process
MBCx — monitoring-based commissioning	Continuously, indefinitely	Permanent metering, automated analytics, and an ongoing correction process

The reason MBCx exists is that the value of the other three decays. A building is commissioned, the findings are corrected, and then setpoints drift, overrides are left in place, schedules are changed for a one-off event and never changed back, a sensor fails, staff turn over. As one operator put it: the building is handed over, the commissioning record stops, the people leave.

Measured persistence is the whole argument. Retro-commissioning savings erode as the building drifts back; MBCx is the mechanism for noticing the drift within weeks instead of within the next study cycle, which may be five years away or never.

What it actually consists of

Four components, and the third is the one projects skip:

1. Permanent metering at a resolution and coverage sufficient to isolate the systems being managed — see what is submetering.
2. Automated analytics running continuously against that data — see what is fault detection and diagnostics.
3. A defined correction process with a named owner, a route into the work-order system, and a verification step confirming the condition cleared.
4. Persistent tracking of whether corrections held.

Independent measurement puts MBCx at approximately 9% energy savings and approximately 9% peak demand reduction, with automated control roughly doubling the peak figure. (ACEEE.) That sits consistently with LBNL's 9% median for fault detection with a follow-up process, which is the same thing described from the software side.

Worked example, including the incentive

A 300,000 sq ft office building using 4,200,000 kWh a year at $0.115/kWh — an annual electricity cost of $483,000.

• MBCx at 9% energy: 378,000 kWh, or $43,470 a year
• Peak reduction at 9% on a 900 kW peak: 81 kW × $14.50/kW-month = $14,094 a year on the demand line

Now the incentive, using Maryland's published 2026 C&I levels, because Maryland funds this category by name:

• Pepco / Delmarva Power, monitoring-based commissioning: 25% of the 18-month software contract cost, capped at $8,000, plus $0.04/sq ft of conditioned space with an ASHRAE Level 2 audit → 300,000 × $0.04 = $12,000
• Implementation: $0.22/kWh on 378,000 kWh = $83,160, within the $200,000 per building cap
• Total incentive: up to roughly $103,000 against annual savings of $57,564

(All projects require pre-approval; rates are subject to change without notice.)

Other published 2026 levels in the region: Potomac Edison pays $0.38/kWh for retro-commissioning, raised from $0.20, plus up to $10,000 of audit cost, on projects pre-approved by 16 December 2026. BGE custom runs up to 50% of cost with an overall cap of $0.28/kWh. PSE&G in New Jersey runs a named monitoring-based commissioning programme alongside strategic energy management, retro-commissioning and virtual commissioning, though it publishes no rates. Delaware's Energy Efficiency Investment Fund pays up to 60% of project cost to a maximum of $250,000 per address per year, rolling year-round, with monitoring pursued under Custom or Energy Assessment rather than as a named measure.

A note on Pennsylvania: Act 129 Phase V opened 1 June 2026 across PECO, PPL, Duquesne and FirstEnergy PA and runs to 31 May 2031, with a statewide target above 3 million MWh. No EDC has published a C&I custom rate for Phase V, so any Pennsylvania project should be modelled at zero incentive and treated as upside if one appears.

What MBCx is not

It is not a one-time study. That is retro-commissioning. The distinguishing feature of MBCx is that the metering stays, the analytics keep running, and the correction process is a standing responsibility rather than a project with an end date.

It is not a software purchase. Buying the analytics and not resourcing the correction process produces the 3% outcome LBNL measured for information systems, at MBCx prices. The process is the product; the software makes the process affordable.

It does not require a building management system. A BMS makes MBCx richer, particularly on the air side. Electrical submetering alone supports a real and valuable subset — schedule violations, loads that never turn off, standby power, staging that never sheds — and those findings are consistently where the money is.

It is not the same as an energy audit. An audit is a snapshot producing a list of recommended capital measures. MBCx is an operating discipline producing a stream of low-cost and no-cost corrections. The two are complementary and are funded differently.

It is not automatically eligible for every incentive. Utility programmes that name MBCx require pre-approval before work begins, and a project that starts first and applies afterwards is generally ineligible. Check the programme, get the approval, then start.