Key takeaways
- Coverage is the share of a building's total consumption that your data actually captures — not how many buildings you have data for.
- Below 75% coverage, GRESB and ENERGY STAR block performance scoring outright. It is a gate, not a deduction.
- Most failures come from metering boundaries: tenant meters, separate common-area accounts, and sub-metered floors that never reach the portfolio view.
- The fix is operational — a metering boundary audit, then tenant agreements and account consolidation. Typically 4–8 weeks, not a 12-month transformation.
EDRA's B2 component measures something deceptively simple: what proportion of total building consumption is actually represented in your dataset? If a building has 5 meters but only 2 are submitting data, coverage is 40%. Below 75%, performance scoring is blocked entirely. The building might be the most energy-efficient asset in your portfolio — but without sufficient data coverage, it cannot be scored.
"Having data" is not the same as "having coverage"
Most portfolios discover this problem only after submission rejection. The assumption is that "we have data for all our buildings" — which is technically true. They have some data for all buildings. But GRESB and ENERGY STAR require representative data: consumption figures that account for the whole building, not just the landlord-controlled areas or the meters that happen to report consistently. Tenant-metered spaces, common areas with separate utility accounts, and sub-metered floors all contribute to the coverage calculation.
The gap between "having data" and "having coverage" is where most submissions fail. A 22-asset mixed-use portfolio might report energy data for every asset — but when you examine the metering boundaries, nine of those assets are only capturing 40–60% of actual consumption. The retail tenants have their own utility accounts. The parking garage runs on a separate meter. The rooftop equipment is billed to a different entity. None of this shows up in the portfolio-level view until someone maps the metering boundary against the physical boundary.
The fix is operational, not technological
It starts with metering boundary audits: walking each asset's physical footprint against its data footprint. Where do the meters end and the gaps begin? From there, tenant data collection agreements, sub-meter installation, and utility account consolidation close the coverage gap. These are 4–8 week projects, not 12-month transformations — but they have to be identified first.
The portfolio manager sees exactly which assets are at risk and what specific data is missing — not after rejection, but before the submission cycle even begins. Coverage stops being the thing you discover too late, and becomes the first thing you fix.
A mixed-use portfolio of 22 assets found that 9 assets had coverage below 75%. The gaps were concentrated in tenant-metered retail spaces and separately billed common areas. After targeted meter mapping and tenant data collection agreements, coverage rose to 92% across all assets in 8 weeks.
Download Case Study (PDF)Frequently asked questions
What is data coverage in GRESB and ENERGY STAR?
Data coverage is the proportion of a building's total energy and water consumption that is actually represented in your dataset. If a building has 5 meters but only 2 report data, coverage is 40%. GRESB and ENERGY STAR require representative, whole-building data — not just landlord-controlled areas — so tenant-metered spaces, common areas, and sub-metered floors all count toward the calculation.
Why does coverage below 75% block performance scoring?
Below 75% coverage, the dataset isn't representative enough to compute a reliable performance figure, so the scoring engine declines to score the asset at all. The building could be the most efficient in the portfolio, but without sufficient coverage it cannot be scored — coverage is a gate, not a deduction.
How do you fix a building data coverage gap?
The fix is operational, not technological. It starts with a metering boundary audit — walking each asset's physical footprint against its data footprint to find where meters end and gaps begin. From there: tenant data collection agreements, sub-meter installation, and utility account consolidation. These are typically 4–8 week projects.
How long does it take to close a coverage gap?
Most coverage gaps close in 4–8 weeks once identified. In one 22-asset mixed-use portfolio, nine assets sitting below 75% rose to 92% coverage across all assets in eight weeks through targeted meter mapping and tenant data collection agreements.