The ICP development team is considering alternative requirements to "sign off" on projects less than $250,000 in investment capital (typically involving Targeted Commercial or Targeted Multifamily projects). 

Currently, all projects that adhere to the ICP protocols require a Professional Engineer (PE) to sign off / approve the project before it is considered "investor ready." This alternative requirement would allow someone holding AEE's Certified Energy Manager (CEM) or Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) credentials, or the ASHRAE Building Energy Assessment Professional (BEAP) to sign off on a project less than $250k.

We are considering that this person also have either three or five years of applicable experience (energy efficiency project development). 

We are looking for input on whether the ICP should require five years of experience, or whether three years would be sufficient. And what are your thoughts on this approach? Are these certifications appropriate to approve a project's readiness? Are there other certifications that should also be considered?

Please let us know your thoughts!

Thanks - the ICP Development Team.

Thanks to everyone who participated in today’s working group call! We had a great discussion regarding specifics of the QA Specification, which is summarized in the call notes below. A recording of the call will be posted soon on our Technical Forum section of the ICP website.

Please, continue to review the QA Specification on GoogleDocs and provide us with your thoughts and comments. We are hoping to have a complete draft of the document prepared for the next call in late July, at which point we will discuss any final thoughts or comments, with the idea of releasing the document in mid to late August. - ICP Team

• Energy data - ensure that we address filling data gaps (UT3 for example)
  
  
• End use energy usage - suggest using ASHRAE Level II End Use Analysis workbook, to build up the end use energy usage from collected building information (lighting, nameplate data, etc)
  
  
• Weather - mention using weather not just for baseline development, but also for calibration of the energy model, energy savings calculations, and M&V efforts
  
  
• References - we don’t want to completely recreate guidelines and protocols that are already developed; but need to ensure we include enough critical information from these documents, particularly for documents that are not free, so the reader understands what is required. The resources can be referenced to provide greater detail, but the critical components should be included in the QA Specification
  
  
• Retrofit isolation baseline - make sure it only applies to the system within the defined boundary. Applies to Option A and B approaches, and projects such as lighting retrofits, boiler retrofits, PV, etc. Refer to the CCC Guidelines for Verifying Savings from Commissioning Existing Buildings
  
  
• Load profiles - refer to ECAM for guidance with this section
  
  
• Baseline energy model development - should this be moved to the baseline section, or leave it in the savings calculation section? Is it considered part of the baseline development, or is it a “tool” used as part of the Savings Calculation?
  
  
• ECM description - consider mentioning that a “persistence plan” should be included (this is already covered in the OM&M section however)
  
  
• Financing / Investment Criteria - EUL is already included in this section (along with many other components)
  
  
• Mention that the financial metrics should consider uncertainty if possible, as well as persistence of energy savings
  
  
• Cost estimates - not a lot of great resources; RS Means, but what else? Mention that project should utilize third party contractor estimates whenever possible. Particularly if the building owner already has a relationship with specific contractors.
  
  
• ECM modeling - discuss keywords used, assumptions, and documentation of sources. As part of QA, cross reference assumptions with construction documents
  
  
• Operational Performance Verification - group still agrees it is appropriate to not use the term commissioning (Cx); but can still reference / use Cx resources to develop this section. Utilize construction checklists as well
  
  
• Systems Manual - will reference ASHRAE’s new Process and Procedures for Development of a Systems Manual (the document should be approved next week)
  
  
• Did not get to the OM&M and M&V sections of the QA Spec. Will discuss specific sections of these two in the Technical Forum, to get input from the Working Group.

The ICP Quality Assurance Protocol Technical Forum is making good progress on the development of the QA Protocol.  

Our next meeting will occur on Tuesday 6/24 at 10am PDT / 1pm EDT.  If you are interested in attending and are not on our QA Technical Forum mail list please send us a note for the call-in and meeting information.  

The  latest version of the tool can be viewed and commented on here: https://docs.google.com/a/sevengenergy.com/document/d/15rRJWoRTWx80Z8L12PqteCeXsz7awzmDuA7l854msBQ/edit#

And the current agenda for the upcoming meeting can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/a/sevengenergy.com/document/d/1lqcTLrT6iAp513JxcBMsx1YsjbnmNJIMe5geGaor7E0/edit#

Thanks to all for their participation.

The ICP Team