The ICP Technical Forum was held on March 31st, 2016. The group reviewed proposed changes to the Targeted Commercial and Multifamily Protocols. The following are highlights from the conversation. To hear the entire forum conversation, visit this LINK.
- Added protocol summary table to introduction (provides a quick overview of protocol requirements in a single table)
- Agreed that this is a good addition; and will be best if we can format so that the table fits on one page.
- Updated the introduction to reflect the current state of ICP – PDS, credentialing program, IREE, Project Registry.
- Split all sections into Underwriting and Performance Period requirements, as appropriate.
- Agreed that this helps to distinguish between requirements during different phases of project development.
- Removed whole building energy baseline requirement (now optional), and end use energy use estimates (also now optional).
- This whole-building baselining approach may still be appropriate for some Targeted projects. Making this optional will allow projects to utilize this approach, and potentially apply an Option C M&V approach for projects or programs that require / warrant this approach.
- Using a targeted “retrofit isolation” approach, which supports M&V Options A and B directly
- Added discussion of measurement boundary, and added discussion of measured and estimated parameters. Agreed that focusing on this retrofit isolation approach, rather than a whole-building baseline approach, makes sense for many Targeted projects, and directly supports an M&V Option A and/or B approach.
- Cost estimates: now say must “consider” all of these components, rather than must “include.”
- Agreed that the “softer” language still points out key items to consider. But simpler measures may only require application of some of these cost components.
- OM&M: Operator’s Manual is optional.
- Again, simpler projects or measures may not warrant updates to the Operator’s Manual, or creation of an Operator’s Manual if one does not exist.
- M&V: Added Option C M&V approach as optional.
- Larger “targeted” projects or projects with greater savings can take advantage of an Option C M&V approach.
- M&V: Added Option C “portfolio approach” to optional.
- More like spot checking some projects in a larger portfolio (so apply Option C to screen buildings, then apply Option A or B if there are poor performers, or questions.) Data driven approach to warrant Option A and B. Gross savings adjusted for weather, and if within a certain threshold, do not need to do Option A/B M&V. This topic requires additional discussion.
- Updated references (IPMVP Core Concepts, new versions of AHSRAE documents).
- Added QA Checklist to “sign off” page.
- Optional items: need to look at language in the protocols to make sure the role of the QA provider is clear, and they need to help to arbitrate, and represent the “spirit” of the protocols (especially since many items are optional under Targeted, and therefore subject to being ignored).
- Allow proprietary closed book calculations?
- Keep it in, but requires more discussion – Can say something like closed-book proprietary tools “are discouraged,” because it makes it difficult to certify a project. Needs to be well documented and demonstrated ability to prove unbiased results. Onus is on the QA provider to validate use of these tools.