1 PM EST, Tuesday, February 25, 2014
- 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?)?
- Model calibration - to avoid overestimating savings, require that calibration be performed to 0 to -10% or -15%. Eliminate +15% piece.
- Life cycle metrics - make this a requirement instead of optional? Eliminate simple payback as an acceptable metric?
- 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)
- How do we deal with parking in the square footage - do we need to address parking in the protocol?
- Baseline development
- We mention noting major renovations; should we include language that specifically excludes these utility data from the baseline development?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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
9. SIR - should we define this specifically in the protocol? We require an SIR>1
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?
11. Sections 5, 6 and 7: are these too long? Are they specific enough?