M&V Part 4: M&V Plan Review. 4-2 M&V Plan Review Ø FEMP Documents F M&V Overview Checklist (Phase 2) F Final M&V Plan Checklist (Phase 3) Ø Risk & Responsibility.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Contract CloseOut.
Advertisements

Measuring and Verifying Your College's Energy Savings Jeff Hughes, Director Jen Weiss, Senior Finance Analyst Environmental Finance.
M&V Decision Tool Sub-Committee Report Venkat Kumar Satish Kumar FEMP-ESCO Meeting 6 th June, 2002 Palm Springs, CA.
BPA Guidelines for Measurement & Verification of Energy Efficiency Measures Presented at Brown Bag Session November 29, 2006.
Energy Performance Analysis with RETScreen
+ Impact Evaluations and Measurement and Verification First we will focus on ‘Gross Savings’ Determination - savings determined irrespective of why 1 Kentucky.
1 | ESPC Technical Assistance Team eere.energy.gov Welcome to Today’s Training for State and Local grantees on Energy Savings Performance Contracting:
1/14 Policies/Programmes to Promote the Development of ESCO 5 March, 2012 APERC Workshop, Kuala Lumpur Bing-Chwen Yang Team Leader Asia Pacific Energy.
MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION
MENG 547 LECTURE 3 By Dr. O Phillips Agboola. C OMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT Why do we audit Commercial/Industrial buildings Important.
Page 1 July 2014 Capacity Building of Banks/FIs For EE Project Financing Capacity Building of Banks and Financial Institutions for Energy Efficiency Project.
There is Much More to Protocols than Good M&V Steve Kromer Chair, IPMVP Inc. Paolo Bertoldi European Commission DG JRC.
KFUPM, Department of Construction Engineering and Management CEM 520 LIABILITY ALLOCATION AMONG THE PARTIES TO FIXED-PRICE CONSTRUCTIN CONTRACTS IN SAUDI.
HDM-4 Calibration. 2 How well the available data represent the real conditions to HDM How well the model’s predictions fit the real behaviour and respond.
Using Uncertainty Modeling to Optimize M&V in ESPC Projects Discussion Document 10/31/02.
Genesis Solar Module Brochure ™
M&V Planning Working Group Update M&V Summit, New Orleans 5/5/03 Satish Kumar and Venkat Kumar.
Night Covers on Open Vertical Cases Provisional UES Proposal Presentation to the Regional Technical Forum August 30,
S/W Project Management
Retrofit Doors to Open Vertical Cases Provisional UES Proposal Presentation to the Regional Technical Forum August 30,
Practical Experiences in Applying Savings M&V
Commissioning of Federal Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) May 20, 2003 Doug Dahle National Renewable Energy Lab.
Plans to bring Out-of-Compliance UES Measures back into Compliance: 1. Agricultural Irrigation Hardware UES 2. Agricultural Motors UES Regional Technical.
Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of RTF- Approved Measure Savings Estimates December 7, 2010 Regional Technical Forum Presented by: Michael.
Overview of the Regional Technical Forum Guidelines January 22, 2013.
Lisa F. | May 20, 2014 Introduction to Lighting Incentives & Process for Medium/Large Customers.
Phoenix Convention Center Phoenix, Arizona A Review of the Current DOE IDIQ Track 5: Project Financing Session 3: ESPC Large and Small: The Basics of ESPC.
UESC Project Implementation Construction & Installation ä Issue TO for construction ä The pre-construction meeting ä Review/accept final construction package.
DoN ESPC PROGRAM M&V Briefing Russell Dominy, CEM.
M&V Part 2: Risk Assessment & Responsibility Allocation.
Phoenix Convention Center Phoenix, Arizona M&V Contracting / Business Perspective Track 5: Project Financing Session 5: M&V: High- and Low-Level Perspectives.
© 2009 AirAdvice, Inc. Increasing Profitability Through Energy Services A Comprehensive Program To Deliver Energy and Sustainability Services.
Main Headquarters: 120 Water Street, Suite 350, North Andover, MA With offices in: NY, ME, TX, CA, OR Standard Protocol for Non-Residential.
M&V Part 1: D.O. Review. 1-2 Your Instructor Mark Stetz, P.E. Ø Worked with FEMP since Ø Serves as FEMP’s M&V Specialist. Ø Contributed to FEMP.
Forecasting and Verifying the Energy Savings for Web-Enabled Thermostats in Portable Classrooms: William E. Koran, P.E. Quantum Energy Services and Technologies.
1 Operation & Maintenance Savings M&V Summit Kansas City, MO 6 November 2002.
April, 2002Energy Audits1 April, 2002 Ryan Stroupe, Pacific Energy Center DeAnza College: ES 76 Energy Reliability and Your Organization Energy Auditing.
EvergreenEcon.com ESA 2011 Impact Evaluation Research Plan Public Workshop #1 February 20, 2013 Presented By: Steve Grover, President.
EvergreenEcon.com ESA 2011 Impact Evaluation Draft Report Public Workshop #2 August 7, 2013 Presented By: Steve Grover, President.
Effective Energy Management. 1.Develop baseline 2.Identify and quantify savings opportunities 3.Measure and benchmark to sustain efforts.
BPA M&V Protocols Overview of BPA M&V Protocols and Relationship to RTF Guidelines for Savings and Standard Savings Estimation Protocols.
Forecasting and Verifying Energy Savings for Web-Enabled Thermostats in Portable Classrooms: William E. Koran, P.E. Quantum Energy Services and Technologies.
RTF Custom Protocols: Background, Issues and Critical Elements February 8, 2012 Regional Technical Forum Subcommittee on Impact Evaluation and Custom Protocol.
Schools Lighting Hours of Use Data Regional Technical Forum May 13, 2014.
M&V Plan Template Lia Webster, Nexant New Orleans M&V Summit May 2003.
Phoenix Convention Center Phoenix, Arizona ESPC Overview Project FinancingESPC Large and Small: The Basics of ESPC Tom Hattery, DOE-FEMP Federal Project.
GrocerSmart™ 4.0 RTF Approval of Software and Adherence to RTF Guidelines April 5, 2011.
Review of the New England “Mini-Pilot” DHP Evaluation Why we ignore this study.
Guidelines Revisions Defining What RTF Means by “Savings” December 17,
Technology and market potential of energy performance contracting for buildings Conference on Pollution Prevention & Energy Efficiency (P2E2) U.S., Hong.
Comparison of CA Evaluation Protocols, CA Framework, IPMVP and CPUC Policy Manual* A preface to group discussion *In terms of how they define.
Energy Project M&V: Reports that Add Value October 27, 2015.
Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings in Brazil – Guidelines for Implementation Anand Subbiah, Nexant Inc. April 30, 2002, Kubitschek Plaza Hotel, Brasilia,
Slide 1 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Presented by: Todd Amundson, BPA Jane Peters, research into action Ryan Fedie, BPA Update.
BPA Impact Evaluation Policies QSSI. 2 Drivers: Industry Best practice, Power Act, RTF Guidelines, confidence savings.
Week 7 Utility Data Analysis. Essential Elements Identify sources for obtaining utility data: paper form, electronically or from the internet Review utility.
Regional Technical Forum Recommissioning commercial retail facilities: A whole building approach to energy savings April 7th, 2009 Presented by: Jeremy.
REBUILD AMERICA. Why look at the bills? l Bills are the bottom line –they prove the savings!
CALMAC July 18, 2007 Meeting Attribution and Net to Gross Examples for Discussion Clark Bernier, RLW Analytics, Inc.
GrocerSmart™ 4.0 RTF Approval of Software and Adherence to RTF Guidelines April 5, 2011.
Construction Management At Risk Process
Energy Efficiency: Key to High Performance Buildings Jean Lupinacci U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) White House Summit on Federal Sustainable.
EmPOWER Maryland Utility Program Enhancements Meeting Review of BGE’s Filed Multifamily, Custom and Re-Commissioning Programs Discussion on Future Enhancements.
Exceptional Fuel Costs in LMP
EDENTON-CHOWAN SCHOOLS
Energy Savings Performance Contracts & Energy Service Companies
TechStambha PMP Certification Training
FIVE PROJECT PHASES 5C-3 Sun. 8:00-10:00am 21/ 2/2016.
Delran Township School District
EDENTON-CHOWAN SCHOOLS
Presentation transcript:

M&V Part 4: M&V Plan Review

4-2 M&V Plan Review Ø FEMP Documents F M&V Overview Checklist (Phase 2) F Final M&V Plan Checklist (Phase 3) Ø Risk & Responsibility Allocation Ø Option A and Stipulation F Detailed Guidelines Ø Options B / C / D

4-3 Phase 2: Project Development Contractor Responsibilities Ø Develop M&V approach (M&V Overview). Ø Explain and justify approach. Agency Responsibilities Ø Review M&V approach and provide feedback. Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4

4-4 M&V Overview Checklist The following items should be described: Ø Project site and measures. Ø What savings will be claimed. Ø M&V approach for each measure. Ø Baseline equipment and conditions. Ø Proposed equipment and conditions. Ø Annual measurement and verification activities. Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4 

4-5 Phase 3: Negotiation and Award Contractor Responsibilities Ø Perform Detailed Energy Survey (DES) and document baseline information. Ø Modify M&V plan to satisfy agency needs and desires. Agency Responsibilities Ø Review and Approve M&V Plan. Ø Witness and observe DES. Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4

4-6 Final M&V Plan Checklist The following items should be described: Ø Project site and measures. Ø What savings will be claimed. Ø M&V approach for each measure. Ø Details of how calculations will be made, including equations. Ø Baseline equipment and conditions (from DES). Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4 

4-7 Final M&V Plan Checklist continued... Ø Post-Installation equipment and conditions. Ø What metering equipment will be used. Ø What annual verification and measurement activities will be performed. Ø Initial and annual M&V costs. Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4 

4-8 Risk & Responsibility Allocation How to allocate Risks & Responsibilities? Typically: F Performance: Contractor. F Usage: Agency. F Financial: Shared. M&V approach should focus on: F Verifying performance. F Characterizing usage. F Minimizing uncertainty cost-effectively.

4-9 Cost Effectiveness Ø Need to balance M&V rigor with project risk. F Measure things that need measuring. F Consider required precision. Ø Law of Diminishing Returns applies. Ø Typically, initial M&V costs will be 3% to 15% of the capital cost; annual M&V costs will be 3 – 15% of the savings.

4-10 M&V Costs M&V Rigor M&V Cost Value of information $

4-11 Western Region SuperESPC

4-12 Selection Matrix Simple M&V More Rigorous Uncertainty:HighLow Component LevelAB Whole FacilityCD Warning: This is a gross generalization!

4-13 Simple: Option A Ø Option A is intended to be simple and low-cost. Ø Verifies savings of individual components. Ø Equipment performance is measured. Ø Usage may be measured or stipulated. Ø In some cases, FEMP allows performance stipulation. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-14 Option A and Stipulation Not ‘stipulated savings’! Stipulations shift risk to agency. F OK for usage. F Not OK for performance (some exceptions). Option AOption BOption COption D

4-15 Option A Guidelines Ø Option A most common in SuperESPC. Ø Potential for misapplication. Ø Discusses how to use Option A. Ø Discusses how to apply stipulations. See Detailed Guidelines For FEMP M&V Option A (2002) Option AOption BOption COption D

4-16 Example: LE-A-01 FEMP method for Lighting Efficiency, Option A, method #1 Ø Allows using ‘standard fixture tables’ to determine lighting power instead of measurements (stipulated performance). Ø Usage (operating hours) stipulated. Ø Good for small projects (<$10,000/year) Option AOption BOption COption D

4-17 Stipulation Risk LE-A-01 allows stipulation of both usage and performance parameters. Ø If the stipulated values are wrong, the savings estimates will be wrong. Ø The agency assumes all risk, contrary to the intent of a performance contract. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-18 Stipulation Problem Option AOption BOption COption D

4-19 Stipulation Lessons Ø Guaranteed savings $50,000; $24,000 observed in utility bill. Ø Poorly-defined baseline prevents adequate after-the-fact analysis. Ø Option C methods are not sufficiently accurate to support or reject savings claims. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-20 Example: LE-A-02 FEMP method for Lighting Efficiency, Option A, method #2 Ø Common fixture types measured using a statistically-valid number of measurements (3-6). Ø Operating hours usually stipulated, but can be measured. Ø Good for large projects (>$100,000/yr) Option AOption BOption COption D

4-21 Option A Risk Allocation Ø The contractor should measure performance since they control this. Ø The operating hours may be stipulated. Measuring the operating hours reduces uncertainty and risks to both parties. Ø The agency bears the risk of unrealized savings due to changing schedule or incorrect operating hours. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-22 More Rigorous: Option B Ø Verifies at component level. Ø Requires periodic performance measurements- annual to hourly. Ø Usage can be stipulated or measured. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-23 Option B Risk Allocation Ø Energy use and claimed savings will vary from year to year. Ø The contractor assumes all project risk (performance & usage) since savings are based on measured energy use. Ø The contractor would be wise to include in the M&V plan: F limits on their exposure F methods of adjusting the baseline or usage Option AOption BOption COption D

4-24 Simple: Option C Ø Regression method using existing utility meters. Ø Captures interactions between measures to find total savings. Ø Requires collecting and tracking information that affects energy use: F weather F occupancy F production Option AOption BOption COption D

4-25 Option C Risk Allocation Ø The contractor may not find the savings if less than 15% of the baseline use. Ø The contractor bears all project risk. Ø The agency bears the responsibility of tracking changes that affect energy use. Ø It may take 1 year to determine savings. Ø Weather and other factors will influence savings estimates. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-26 More Rigorous: Option D Computer simulation method of evaluating total building performance. Ø Requires calibration to be useful. Ø Requires measurements to calibrate model. Ø Weather data usually ‘typical’, not real. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-27 Option D Risk Allocation Ø Contractor bears performance risk. Ø Agency bears usage risk (stipulated hours and weather). Ø M&V costs may be high. Ø Short-term measurements and long- term verification still needs to be performed. Option AOption BOption COption D

4-28 Results OptionUsage Risk Performance Risk UncertaintyCost Aagencycontractorhighlow Bcontractor lowhigh Ccontractor mediumlow Dagencycontractorvariablehigh Option AOption BOption COption D Warning: These are gross generalizations! It is possible to shift risks and changes costs.

4-29 Review & Discussion Ø Performance must be verified if guarantee is to have value. Ø Agency often assumes usage risk. Ø Uncertainty is inherent in M&V. Ø M&V costs need to be balanced against project risks.

4-30 Review Questions Ø How do we measure savings? Ø When might an agency accept performance risk?