Laserfiche WebLink
MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION METHODS <br />Measurement and Verification (M&V) of energy savings is a methodology based on standard industry protocol <br />intended to provide reasonable assurance that energy savings calculated are realized over the term of the contract. <br />The development of the M&V plan is based on the IPMVP-2001 (International Performance Measurement and <br />Verification Protocol) and the application of sound engineering and business guidelines to the overall need for <br />verification of energy savings for each FEM. This plan contains methodology that shall cost effectively provide <br />assurance of equipment savings through short term or spot measurements, engineering calculations and/or direct <br />utility billing comparisons. The necessary components to a well-established M & V Plan are: <br />➢ Specific identification of each FEM and proposed M & V. Reporting requirements for overall savings. <br />➢ Participation of all parties and any necessary coordination with independent review. <br />Methods of M&V vary in accordance with the type of project, level of assurance of savings, cost, and availability of <br />data, financing constraints, and energy costs. The methods selected must be cost effective given the financial savings <br />to the Purchaser. The methods used for the FEMs detailed herein were selected to minimize M&V cost while still <br />providing a reasonable assurance of the savings calculations. <br />The IPMVP-2001 guideline provides the following options related to methodology for M&V: <br />Option A — Partially Measured Retrofit Isolation. Option A uses a combination of stipulated and/or measured <br />factors to calculate baseline usage and savings associated with the FEM. Spot or short-term measurement would be <br />used for the measured values. Stipulated values are supported by Purchaser input, historical data, or manufacturer <br />data. <br />Baseline and savings calculations are provided through engineering calculations, component or system <br />models. <br />➢ Depending on number of points measured, Option A provides the least cost alternative to M&V. <br />Option B — Retrofit Isolation. Option B provides for measurement to provide data for assessing values or variables. <br />Spot or short-term measurement, taken at the component and/or system level are taken when variations in factors can <br />be accounted for or eliminated. Continuous measurement at the component and/or system level can also be used to <br />account for the variations in factors over time. <br />➢ Baseline and savings calculations are provided through engineering calculations, component or system <br />models. <br />➢ Cost is variable depending on the points measured, and the term of the measurement process used. Option <br />B provides a better scenario for FEMs where a small number of factors can be accurately measured with a <br />measurement plan. <br />Option C — Whole Building. Option C involves the use of utility meters or whole building sub -metering to assess the <br />energy performance of the entire building. After an FEM is implemented the billing data is assessed in accordance <br />with an approved plan to determine actual FEM savings. <br />➢ Baseline is established through utility data and engineering/regression analysis. <br />➢ Engineering calculations or modeling initially provides estimated FEM savings. <br />➢ Actual FEM savings are based on the utility or metered data. Savings must be adjusted for changes in <br />building operation and variables assumed in the engineering calculations or modeling (such as weather, <br />occupancy, etc.). <br />➢ Cost of this approach is variable based on the availability of utility data, sub -metered data, and overall savings <br />guarantee. If the metered data is used for a savings guarantee, all variables related to building performance <br />Attachment A <br />*CLIMATECr Page 4 of 13 <br />MFRGING BUIL-DINGO & TFC.HNQL_LK!v <br />