The following are highlights from the discussions:

• The ICP QA Provider must ensure that a project was developed according to the ICP Energy Performance Protocols leveraging the ICP Project Development Specification and the QA Checklist. And, the QA Provider must check that methodologies, assumptions and results follow best practices and are reasonable.
• The risk associated with a project or a measure drives the level of review detail necessary. The QA effort is all about risk mitigation.
  
• The QA provider experience is key. If the credentialed project developer (PD) follows ICP, it will reduce review time. Standardization plays a big part in the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process.
  
• Projects are complex - the review process is difficult to define discretely. Reviewer's experience is paramount in the process.
  
• Many investors already require a PE; for the QA provider, ICP wants to establish a higher bar than PD. The PE license is  important for QA. However, being a PE does not mean they know about energy efficiency (EE) projects. And, PE’s are more experienced but more expensive. Some large firms have lots of experience but not necessarily PE's on staff. But consensus is that the review process must be performed with oversight from a PE, however the work itself can be done by other staff, ideally with specific certifications pertaining to the areas of the project they are reviewing (CEM, BEMP, CMVP, etc.).
  
• Make it clear that this review process should involve the PE overseeing the work, with others performing the actual review (those that have specialized skills for different EE project components)
  
• Review associated with programs in NY, MA, NJ, CT - None of these programs require that the review is performed by a PE, but they require that it is performed with oversight by a PE (or registered architect)
  
• Should the stamp be required? Some investors do require this. Without this requirement, many investors may push back - there is little risk associated with doing a review on the reviewer's part.  
  
• Is "signing off" by the PE  enough, and how does this really differ from a PE stamp? - The QA provider is not saying that the project will perform.
• Require five years of QA experience rather than PD experience? Maybe 5 years relevant EE PD experience, and 3 years QA experience?
• Should ICP require certifications for the different components of an EE project review? Energy modeling, M&V, Cx, etc? This may be too restrictive, as some certifications, such as energy modeling for example, are still not well established in the industry.
• Should there be difference requirements for targeted projects versus larger, more comprehensive projects?
• PE STAMP: 
• For the public, the seal constitutes the distinctive mark of the professional engineer. It must be used to identify all work prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, a professional engineer as part of professional engineering services rendered to the public. It assures the document’s recipient that the work meets the standards of professionalism expected of competent, experienced individuals who take personal responsibility for their judgments and decisions. The seal is important because it is a visible commitment to the standards of the profession and signifies to the public that a particular P.Eng. accepted professional responsibility for the document. Affixing the seal to a document is a statement by a professional engineer to others that they can, with a high degree of confidence, depend upon the contents of the document for the furtherance of their projects. Since the outcome of a project depends on factors beyond the control of an engineer, however, a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed by an engineer. The seal is not, and should not be considered, a certification mark or warranty of correctness. According to the Supreme Court (Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N. D. Lea & Associates Ltd.), the “seal attests that a qualified engineer prepared the document. It is not a guarantee of accuracy”. Instead, it should be considered a “mark of reliance”, an indication that others can rely on the fact that the opinions, judgments, or designs in the sealed documents were provided by a professional engineer held to high standards of knowledge, skill and ethical conduct.
• Suggestion of how to define the QA Provider requirements:

• Can be an individual, an independent firm, or a program
  
• Must be a PE (if an individual) or have a PE on staff to oversee and approve all review efforts (if a firm)
  
• Minimum of five years of relevant energy efficiency project development experience, and three years quality assurance review experience, documented in the form of a CV outlining relevant project experiences
  
• Must attend the ICP Credentialed Project Developer training
  
• Must complete the ICP Credentialed Quality Assurance Provider training
  
• Primary responsibilities include:
  
• Ensure that the project was developed according to the ICP Energy Performance Protocols leveraging the ICP Project Development Specification and QA Checklist
  
• Check that methodologies, assumptions and results follow best practices and are reasonable

The fact is that Option D is primarily intended for new construction projects; essentially, projects in which there are no baseline data available (utility data). The energy model is used to estimate energy use for the proposed building, since none exists. The actual performance of the building, once it is built, is then compared to this estimate of energy use generated by the energy model.

Conversely, the ICP is designed to address the retrofit of existing buildings; buildings that have utility data - which can be used to develop an actual baseline for the building. So the Option D approach is unnecessary.

However, this does not mean that the calibrated simulation’s usefulness ends after the savings projections have been established. The model can and should still play a part in the M&V process. For most if not all M&V efforts, non-routine adjustments need to be made to the baseline, to reflect unanticipated changes in the building’s energy use after the retrofits have been completed. Adjustments such as increased occupancy, new internal loads, added square footage, etc. These items affect heating and cooling loads, and building energy use, and need to be calculated and essentially subtracted from or added to the baseline, so that it can be accurately compared to the post-retrofit energy use in an Option C approach.

Calculation of the effects of these adjustments on the building’s energy use can be challenging, especially adjustments that affect the loads in the building, and have potentially complicated interactive effects with the building’s HVAC systems. The calibrated energy model can subsequently be used to estimate these effects on energy use, in a more comprehensive and accurate manner than spreadsheet calculations or other methods.

If a modeling approach is used for a Standard project type, again, it can and in fact needs to be used in an Option A or B M&V approach. Options A and B assess the performance of energy conservation measures. If the measures are operating as expected, nothing else needs to be done. However, if the measures are not operating as expected, these variations in operation need to be quantified, so that “verified” energy savings can be calculated. Thus, if an energy model was used for the original savings calculations, this same model needs to be adjusted with the observed / measured variations in operation, so that the revised or verified energy savings can be calculated.

Does Option D have a place in existing building retrofit projects? The answer is yes, but it is mainly applied only when there is no baseline data available for the building. For example, a centrally-metered campus of buildings where no individual building meter exists. 

Energy modeling represents an important tool in energy efficiency project development. It is used to estimate energy savings, and can also be applied to determine the effects of non-routine adjustments or to calculate verified energy savings in the M&V effort. However, the ICP requires a baseline developed from actual historical utility data, a requirement that excludes the use of an Option D approach to M&V.