There is no one-size-fits-all solution for capturing tenant-controlled utility data. The key is to understand the pros and cons of the various approaches to determine the right path (or paths) for your portfolio.
We’ve covered shadow metering in depth, from how to evaluate hardware specifics, to the legality and permissibility, to how to budget for it, and the additional value that can be derived from interval data.
But shadow metering isn’t the obvious choice for everyone.
Perhaps the sheer size of the portfolio causes hesitation about the aggregate operational and financial investment to roll out.
Perhaps buildings in the portfolio are small enough that the cost of shadow metering is too much to bear for tenants.
Perhaps the nature of the tenants themselves gives confidence that data sharing will not be an issue.
Perhaps the entire portfolio is located in a utility jurisdiction that offers whole building data.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is trash / waste data, which cannot be shadow metered.
Whatever the reason, there are plenty of valid justifications for exploring alternatives to shadow metering.
Our goal is to illuminate the pros and cons, so that the right approach can be determined.
Utility Direct
There are some utilities (Energy Star has put together a helpful map) that offer whole building data for benchmarking purposes.
The specifics vary, from having a seamless API that pushes data into a system of record automatically, to simply providing an excel file once a year.
Of course, there are pros and cons to this approach.
Pros
- Cost effective - the most obvious advantage is that there is technically no cost to do this (although there is generally a cost associated with somebody interfacing with the utility to get this setup
- Limited tenant involvement - compared to asking tenants to share their bills, the lift is much lower for the tenant. Though it’s not none, generally landlords need to secure letters of authorization from each tenant.
- Whole building data - when data is provided, it is for the whole building, which is critical for benchmarking and ESG reporting frameworks like GRESB
Cons
- Low granularity data - as mentioned, some utilities will simply do a big data dump once a year. This can come late, causing all sorts of problems when trying to meet deadlines for ESG reporting frameworks like GRESB
- Accuracy issues - in some sense, you get what you pay for. Utilities make money by selling energy or water. They have very little incentive to invest into something that they don’t get paid for. There are countless stories of data being shared for the wrong address, wrong timeframe, or simply wrong
- Complicated setup - similar to above. Because they have no incentive, they can be notoriously slow and hard to work with
- Still need to get LOAs - When there are fewer than 3-5 tenants (depending on utility), they must all sign LOAs to begin the setup process. This can prove quite challenging
- Not all utilities offer this - When looking at a portfolio, it’s almost guaranteed that there will be properties outside of jurisdictions that offer this service. Therefore, it can’t be the only strategy
Tenant Data Sharing
When landlords need to benchmark their properties, but tenants pay the bill and therefore control the data, the most obvious thing to do is simply ask for it.
This can come in different forms. The most streamlined path is for tenants to securely enter their utility login credentials into an online portal. From there, the bills can be scraped and relevant data extracted in a digital format.
If tenants are not comfortable with inputting login credentials, bills can be manually uploaded to an online portal and scraped.
Much less ideal, the bills are simply emailed to property managers, who manually transcribe the data.
Side note - there is a lot that goes into processing utility bills with rigorous quality assurance standards. Accuracy and quality assurance should always be a line of questioning with any potential partner.
Pros
- Cost effective - it is pretty inexpensive to pursue this strategy. Whether through software, or raw man power via property managers, this is a good way to keep costs down
- Services insights - with utility bills, data can be gleaned that can be used to bring energy services such as demand response or energy procurement to the table as a value add amenity for tenants
Cons
- Still need to process the bills - As mentioned, a quality software includes rigorous QA. But if this is done manually, it can be burdensome (or expensive to outsource) manually transcribing data from bills
- Tenant frustration - Tenants are customers, and this is a process that asks them to do work on behalf of the landlord with potentially no benefit to them. This is not ideal in a competitive market
- Poor data coverage - While there are examples of having high levels of data coverage using this strategy, this typically results in mediocre to poor results. Many tenants ignore requests, some straight deny them.
Manual Meter Readings
All gas meters are located on the outside of the building and are accessible without entering the tenant space. Approximately 80% of electrical meters are the same.
That opens up the opportunity for someone (typically a property manager) to read the meters manually.
This can be done on a clipboard, but then it has to be manually transcribed later (introducing plenty of opportunities for human error).
A better strategy is a meter reading app, where pictures are taken and data can be processed and QA’d in the background.
Pros
- Cost effective - Many property managers visit their buildings once a quarter at least anyway. It doesn’t add much time to add a meter reading task, nor does the software cost very much
- No tenant involvement - Data can be collected without tenants being involved at all
Cons
- Limited services insights - because there is only consumption data to go off of, there are fewer services insights that can be brought to tenants
- Limited Energy Star metrics - Energy Star requires meter reads at most every 65 days to enable weather normalization statistics, which might not be feasible with property manager schedules. This may or may not be an issue depending on each portfolio’s requirements
- No trash data - there’s no way to do manual meter reads for trash data
Bottom Line
The point is: there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Each portfolio faces different challenges — whether it’s size, contract complexity, tenant profiles, or utility limitations.
Shadow metering remains the most complete option when the goal is to ensure full visibility and accurate real-time data. But it’s not always feasible, which makes it essential to understand the available alternatives.
Software-based options have their place — especially for trash data, but they often require manual effort and don’t guarantee full data coverage.
The key is to combine strategies intelligently, adapting to the reality of each portfolio.
Having the right data is what allows you to flip the script: instead of chasing data or relying on your tenants, use tools that capture it automatically — turning that into operational advantage, access to capital, and increased asset value.
