- John Jones; Maggie Selig; Ian Shapiro; Chris Diamond, Darrien Crimmin, Tracy Phillips, Matt Golden, Jeff Milum
- Technical Forum section of the ICP website - portal for communication
- Specific details regarding the actual energy audit and process are not covered in the protocol. But should we provide more direction regarding building asset data to be collected (Section 2.1 - mention physical attributes, etc.), and more detailed scopes of work for ECMs (is this addressed adequately in Section 4.3?)? Mention equipment inventory in particular; better defined scopes of work for the ECMs.
- Model calibration - to avoid overestimating savings, require that calibration be performed to 0 to -10% or -15%. Eliminate +15% piece. CV(RSME) – just 15%, not plus or minus, on a monthly basis. FEMP says +/-5% on annual basis. If we say only -15%, that’s fine. But don’t allow this to give a “false sense of security.” Still need to check reasonableness of savings calculations. QA mention should be put into the baseline section too, similar o what is included in the ECM (Savings Calculation) section.
- Life cycle metrics - make this a requirement instead of optional? Eliminate simple payback as an acceptable metric? Keep simple payback as an option. SIR as a requirement.
- Large / standard / targeted project sizes - can number of units be used as a metric for project size? (Eg., ~$3k in potential ECMs per unit, so 150+ units = large, 50-150 units = standard…). Other resources suggest large = 500+ units. Or is this based on project cost like commercial (large = ? $1M) I don’t think this matters. I think we keep the definition as we have it in the large and standard commercial protocols (in general: >$1M = large; $200k-$1M = standard).
- How do we deal with parking in the square footage - do we need to address parking in the protocol? Attached parking garages are included in the square footage – we will consider mentioning that this is the case so that it is clear in the protocol.
- Baseline development
- We mention noting major renovations; should we include language that specifically excludes these utility data from the baseline development? Yes, include this language, and make sure the protocol indicates that the data since the renovation was completed should be used to develop the baseline – not data during or before the major renovation.
- Is there a “standard” sampling approach we can suggest for tenant billing? NYSERDA MPP v5 and NYC LL84 requires that 10% of tenant billing (for each “apartment line”) be included to estimate energy usage for the building’s “tenant” portion; is there a HUD resource? Still no leads on the HUD resource. Will keep looking for this. This NYSERDA guidance on a “sampling” approach is the only one I know of so far.
- Use of “default” values for tenant energy usage? NYC LL84 allows use of default values (provides these) for NY properties. Can this approach be used? Are there other sources of these data for other regions? This is the only regional source I know of. Could put in the protocol that this approach could be used if a credible data source is available.
- Vacancy rates or other related adjustments are primarily a concern when they are anticipated to be different between the pre and post construction periods - should handling these be specifically mentioned in baseline development and M&V activities (can affect tenant energy usage and central heating plant energy usage) This is really an independent variable. Needs to be properly defined in the baseline, and adjusted for in the M&V during the regression analysis.
9. SIR - should we define this specifically in the protocol? We require an SIR>1 Maybe a definitions section, or a separate document with definitions to start with? Check that all of the acronyms are spelled out the first time, and maybe include links to definitions of these as links in the protocol.
We should keep in mind that there are other items included in a project, or specific items that don’t pay back very well (like a boiler replacement, window replacement, other non-energy measures). So SIR>1 should not be a requirement.
10. Affordable housing - good part of the utility costs are picked up by the government, so you have a third player. There are many different types of lenders, and they compete regarding whose mortgage takes priority. Finance side is complicated. The MF protocol should apply, if a project development team can work out the financial side of an affordable housing scenario. So no need for a different affordable housing protocol? No need for a separate protocol for affordable housing.
11. Sections 5, 6 and 7: are these too long? Are they specific enough?
Should we include an energy audit section in future iterations of the protocol? We should consider this. At the very least, refer to the NYSERDA modeling guidelines or an equal guideline.