Attending Members: 

• John Jones; Maggie Selig; Ian Shapiro; Chris Diamond, Darrien Crimmin, Tracy Phillips, Matt Golden, Jeff Milum
  

1. Technical Forum section of the ICP website - portal for communication
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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.
7. 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.
  

8.      Savings calculations and implementation cost estimates - discuss uncertainty in more detail? Never done on actual EE projects. Maybe more discussion of it in the M&V section though?

    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.

Multifamily Technical Forum Agenda
1 PM EST, Tuesday, February 25, 2014

1. Technical Forum section of the ICP website - portal for communication
2. 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?)?
   
3. Model calibration - to avoid overestimating savings, require that calibration be performed to 0 to -10% or -15%. Eliminate +15% piece.
   
4. Life cycle metrics - make this a requirement instead of optional? Eliminate simple payback as an acceptable metric?
   
5. 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)
   
6. How do we deal with parking in the square footage - do we need to address parking in the protocol?
   
7. Baseline development

1. We mention noting major renovations; should we include language that specifically excludes these utility data from the baseline development?
2. 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?
   
3. 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?
   
4. 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
   

    8.    Savings calculations and implementation cost estimates - discuss uncertainty in more detail?

    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?

During the development of the recently launched Targeted Commercial protocol we made a number of improvements that are related not just to Targeted Commercial, but we believe are equally applicable to Large and Standard Commercial Protocols.

To that end, we have incorporated feedback into updated protocols and wanted to ensure that the working group members approve of the revisions.   The red-lined versions of both protocols are attached.  As always, we would appreciate it if you could review and let us know of any feedback you have so so that we can continue to evolve these documents to best meet the market’s needs.  Please utilize Word’s track changes and comment feature and send back any changes/edits or comments.  We are hoping to get all feedback gathered by next Friday, 2/14. Though as always, feedback at any point is always appreciated.

Additionally, while most of the changes are not substantial, we wanted to draw your attention to updates to the previously titled the “Design, Construction and Commissioning” section which is now labeled the “Design, Construction and Verification” section.  

The relabeling of the term “commissioning” is driven by certain connotations associated with this term which typically are linked to comprehensive processes involving assessment of all of the systems and controls within a building.  In the case of the ICP protocols, specified measures addressing this area focus solely on ensuring that implemented ECM’s will achieve their predicted savings.  We believe that the term “operational performance verification” more accurately describes the ICP approach and avoids confusion with more intensive and perhaps burdensome “commissioning” requirements.  

As such, this section of the protocol has been redeveloped, focusing on and explaining this methodology and the associated elements, procedures and documentation associated with operational performance verification.

See revised Large Commercial 1.2 and Standard Commercial 1.1 for review.  Please provide comment using Track Changes.

The changes made to date to the MF Protocol, based on comments and conversations, are summarized below. 

1. Now called Large Multifamily, instead of Multifamily Large Commercial
2. Section 2.0: Introduction - Described categories surrounding data availability and tenant privacy laws
   
3. Section 2.1: Building asset data - Added specific note regarding definition of gross floor area
4. Section 2.3: Optional, Retrofit Isolation Baseline - Addresses development of owner-paid utility baseline (isolates baseline so does not include tenant spaces, if ECMs only apply to owner-paid utilities)
5. Section 4.0: Introduction - Describes split incentives, and development of savings estimates split between owner-paid utilities and tenant-paid utilities (those that accrue to the building owner, and those that accrue to the tenants, so that appropriate savings recovery efforts can be developed)
6. Section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3: Operational performance verification plan - Added as a specific pre-construction element, procedure and document