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.
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.
| Energy Performance Protocol - Large Commercial v1.2.docx |
| Energy Performance Protocol - Standard Commercial v1.1.docx |
RSS Feed